Skip to comments.
Texas Police Will Take Blood By Force in DUI Cases
Ft. Worth Star Telegram via TheNewspaper.com ^
| 9/14/05
| Ft. Worth Star Telegram Staff
Posted on 09/14/2005 3:42:43 PM PDT by elkfersupper
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 221-237 next last
To: Ditto
The thing about this whole DUI theme is, "how do you know what is right?"
This is exactly like the environmental hysteria pushed on us for more than a generation. False figures are used like the ones used to define "alcohol related incidents."We allow emotions, manipulated "facts" and anecdotes to drive us to these unreasonable steps.
I would be willing to bet that no true scientific study has shown or can show whether the impairment figure is .15, .10 or .08. In fact, I will bet that each of us are so different, that the amount of impairment depends on the individual.
161
posted on
09/15/2005 9:11:50 AM PDT
by
saminfl
To: A Jovial Cad
one of those peculiar movements that has brought together the oddest of allies: the politically correct left and fundamentalists in what is called the "religious right."
These two groups also get together in the anti Porn movement. Jerry Farwell and Gloria Steinem want the exact same thing on that score.
162
posted on
09/15/2005 9:24:45 AM PDT
by
Borges
To: Ditto
I don't understand why the necessity of blood... wouldn't it be easier to get urine? Maybe that's it... you can't force someone to pee on command, or breath in the straw properly, but you CAN strap them down and take the blood.
I still think this crosses the line into a forced self-incrimination.
163
posted on
09/15/2005 9:42:45 AM PDT
by
johnb838
(I got nuthin to say,)
To: elkfersupper
And once they get the blood, they can magically make the alcohol content appear in it.
To: Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
165
posted on
09/15/2005 12:26:47 PM PDT
by
freepatriot32
(Deep within every dilemma is a solution that involves explosives)
To: elkfersupper
Can you force these thugs to take your blood to prove your innocent?
Can I take their blood by force if I suspect they have used a substance? If they refuse, can I take their badge away for six months no matter what?
166
posted on
09/15/2005 12:32:40 PM PDT
by
Protagoras
(My liberal neighbor is more dangerous to my freedom than Osama Bin Laden.)
To: rockabyebaby
Oh my, this could get nasty, who's idea is this again???? LOL, I wanna see them take blood by force, lol, this should be good, real good!Oh,,they will, they will. And yes, they get as many guys as it takes and use whatever force they need and strap you down. And you lose your licence, no matter what it shows. And no, you have no recourse. The fifth amendment is as dead as all the rest.
167
posted on
09/15/2005 12:40:39 PM PDT
by
Protagoras
(My liberal neighbor is more dangerous to my freedom than Osama Bin Laden.)
To: MrStumpy
Then you are an enemy of the Constitution.
You seem to forget what country you live in. This is NOT the USSR where you are owned by the Government, nor is it China.
If this is the kind of law enforcement you prefer, then go to some Communistic Dictatorship that encourages this.
We don't need Nannies here and there are far too many of you for my tastes.
168
posted on
09/15/2005 12:57:40 PM PDT
by
Leatherneck_MT
(3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
To: elkfersupper
What, no ping for me? ;-)
I'm coming in late, so I look forward to all the FReepers that applaud this blatant disrespect for individual libertyu.
169
posted on
09/15/2005 12:58:46 PM PDT
by
CSM
( It's all Bush's fault! He should have known Mayor Gumbo was a retard! - Travis McGee (9/2))
To: elkfersupper
You do NOT have a right to refuse a test to see if you are drunk or drugged. A drivers license is usually granted on the condition you consent to administrative testing of your condition if you are arrested in the course of a DUI. If you're too stupid to understand you will be tested and you willfully refuse the test - you will lose your drivers' license.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
170
posted on
09/15/2005 1:03:31 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: RegulatorCountry
Its an administrative action, separate from an arrest. You may not condition taking a test on an attorney being present or on one showing up. You are free of course, to have your own test administered later at the behest of your attorney.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
171
posted on
09/15/2005 1:05:31 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Normal4me
well, go ahead and reach for it. don't you people underatsnd
that most cops don't want to pull people over?
they just want to go home at the end of tour. however,
if you are observed driving eratically and possibly drunk,
then you are a danger to me and my family and friends and whoever
else is driving and you need to be stopped. and if you pull a
gun on a cop doing his job, you need to be shot. what if your
kid was hit by a drunk driver shortly after he passed
by a cop who did nothing?
To: semaj
Driving in America is a privilege - not a right. Evidence that you've been granted that privilege is your drivers' license. It can be taken away from you if you break the law or abuse the privilege.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
173
posted on
09/15/2005 1:07:36 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: MrStumpy
First, I am truly sorry to hear about your unfortunate tragedy that has changed your life. Second, the young lady that drove drunk and caused you your pain deserves a very long prison sentence, and much more.
That said, with all of the concentration and demonization on DUI the rest of the risky driving behaviour is being ignored. Is someone less dead if a sober driver kills them? People need to be punished equally for all risky driving that results in actual damage to other people or property. That might actually make the roads saver.
In addition, this concentration is nothing more than revenue generation at this point. It can simply be proven by every time there is a decline in DUI arrests, MADD creates the climate to lower the legal BAC. Whenever revenue drops, the BAC drops and at this point the number of traffic deaths is remaining constant.
I have a couple of very specific questions I would like you to answer:
1) Why does MADD receive money from the courts with each DUI conviction?
2) Why isn't MADD directly involved in the community by offering rides to people that have been drinking? (An example would be a shuttle service or something similar.)
3) What is your specific definition of drunk?
174
posted on
09/15/2005 1:12:27 PM PDT
by
CSM
( It's all Bush's fault! He should have known Mayor Gumbo was a retard! - Travis McGee (9/2))
To: A Jovial Cad
I have stated many times on FR that the loony left and righteous right are equally dangerous to our freedoms. Both want to use government guns to enforce their preferred morality and both feel emotionally satisfied when successful.
Your post was spot on.
175
posted on
09/15/2005 1:19:56 PM PDT
by
CSM
( It's all Bush's fault! He should have known Mayor Gumbo was a retard! - Travis McGee (9/2))
To: goldstategop
"Its an administrative action, separate from an arrest."
Legalistic dodge, akin to the traffic cameras issuing a citation, instead of a ticket. The result of this so-called "administrative action" are inseparable from criminal prosecution, however. And so, it remains unconstitutional. No matter how cleverly the verbage may read.
To: Lester Moore
"..but around 40% of all accidents with fatalities is caused by a driver that has been drinking."
Nope. Around 40% of all accidents with fatalities involves alcohol. Big difference. The pedestrian who had been drinking that gets run over and killed by a sober driver is considered a traffic accident resulting in death that involved alcohol.
Why not treat all drivers, drunk or sober, that cause damage to people or property with the same penalties?
177
posted on
09/15/2005 1:24:52 PM PDT
by
CSM
( It's all Bush's fault! He should have known Mayor Gumbo was a retard! - Travis McGee (9/2))
To: phil1750
"I lost a son to a drunk driver and I don't believe impared drivers have any rights."
Do you think we should pull our troops out of Iraq because a mother lost her son to a war?
178
posted on
09/15/2005 1:30:24 PM PDT
by
CSM
( It's all Bush's fault! He should have known Mayor Gumbo was a retard! - Travis McGee (9/2))
To: elkfersupper
Why don't we just ban booze altogether and get this crap over with?
While we are at it, why don't we make it a PITA to get allergy pills. Let's make everybody who wants certain allergy pills have to ask for them, show a Driver's License and fill out a form, even though we could drive a few hours to another state and buy the same pills off the shelf. Oh wait, they already did that.
You are on the right track though - even though many groups want to ban booze, the government makes too much money off of it.
If the government thought it could make more money (i.e. increase their budgets) by banning booze, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
To: MeanWestTexan
Yes I guess you are right, nor is it illegal to take your property and give it to others who can raise more taxes.
180
posted on
09/15/2005 2:15:02 PM PDT
by
CJ Wolf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 221-237 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson