Posted on 12/28/2007 7:07:11 PM PST by elkfersupper
More Texas jurisdictions are turning to forced blood draws to convict those suspected of DUI.
Jurisdictions within Texas are expanding programs where police use force to draw blood from motorists accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Last week, El Paso announced it had joined Harris and Wilson Counties in a "no refusal" program specifically designed to streamline the blood drawing process.
It works as follows. An accused motorist is arrested and taken downtown. While being videotaped, he will be asked to submit to a breathalyzer test with officers specifically avoiding any mention that blood will be taken by force if the often inaccurate breathalyzer test is refused.
During key holiday weekends, a pre-assigned judge who agreed to wait by the phone will approve search warrants created from pre-written templates -- often within just thirty minutes. With warrant in hand, a nurse whose salary is often paid by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) will draw blood while police officers exert the required level of force. In some cases, this use of force can cause permanent damage. Montague, Archer and Clay counties have similar programs except that these departments do away with the nurse and have police officers perform the blood draw themselves, despite a state law banning the practice (view law).
Two of the twelve motorists subjected to the first blood draws in Harris County on Memorial Day weekend this year were later found to have blood alcohol levels below the .08 limit. The program will return on New Year's Eve.
On what planet?
Amen and dittos to that, brother!
This is ABSOLUTELY true! Sounds like you have some experience in this area as well?? The reason I risked so much to fight this was exactly that: I KNEW I was not drunk...not even close.
But... boy, was it scary. The prosecuting attorney was a cute female who was 33-0. They made me come to court (1 1/2 hour drive for me), 6 times before the trial started. Each time, I had to sit for 1-2 hours while they cleared the docket, then moved for a continuance... each time, granted.
On the first day of my trial, the Judge gave out invitations to his home Christmas Party to all the court workers.. including the prosecutors. Then, the Judge threatened to jail my attorney because he dared to politely correct the judge about the pronunciation of his name.
During the trial, the arresting officers, and a few of his friends, sat behind my 19 year old wife chanting "six months in the county jail".
After that HPD chemist made his remarks about the machine not being a "chemical test", the prosecution rested... after being asked THREE TIMES by the judge if they were "sure"... When my attorney immediately pointed out the problem with the law and requested dismissal, the Judge decided to allow them to re-open their presentation (after careful overnight consideration) to present "new evidence"... which was, a technician who worked for the Chief Chemist testifying that, "yes... it IS a chemical test".
It was... an extremely emotional week... And, YES.. SO WONDERFUL when it turned out fairly. Thankfully, I've never had to do anything remotely like that since.
Thanks for the discussion... Happy New Year to you as well... and, don't worry, I will ALWAYS be CONSERVATIVE! :-)
“It’s quite disingenuous of you to continue to attribute any of the counts to MADD when you know quite well they are quoting other peoples numbers.”
When MADD repeats numbers from whatever source, they are endorsing them. Further, MADD has been caught advancing numbers that apparently have no other source than their fevered imaginations.
“As well as any connection I may or may not have with them, which there is none.”
I never said you had any connection with them.
“But none of that has stopped you from fabricating a connection now has it?”
I never need anything to stop me from fabricating anything. I refrain from fabrications as a matter of principle and habit. In line with that habit, I have not said or implied that you have any connection with MADD.
“As far as being a prohibitionist, I’m far from it.”
Again, to say that you have believed the numbers advanced by crypto-prohibitionists is not to say that you are a prohibitionist.
“I don’t care if you get sh*t faced daily”
Can’t drink. Diabetes and liver problems.
“You make the claim that it’s about rights, but it appears the only right you are referring to is the right to drink and drive otherwise you wouldn’t be spouting .1% is safe.”
Well, yes, the only right I am referring to in this discussion is the right to drink and drive. I discuss other rights in other discussions, but this one is about drinking and driving.
If you think that we should outlaw driving after drinking any amount of alcohol, then you should say so, rather than trying to get your way by blurring the difference between driving after drinking but unimpaired, and driving while impaired.
Let me correct my statement. Not in my state.
Put your glasses on and your hearing aid in.
I said 1969.
I shall do that, but keep in mind national figures don’t do that.
The feds do not investigate collisions. They get their stats from the states.
“Freedom is about authority,” says Rudy Giuliani.
You answered your own question
You lose your debate and credibility with the insults IMO.
As a former deputy sheriff who knows DWI checkpoints DO NOT WORK as they remove resources from patrols where known DUI’s are common . Most checkpoints are simple revenue based fiasco’s that endanger citizen and LEO alike are put up where traffic is heavy and more likely to create a fatal accident than stop one.
Throw up all the fabricated facts and figures ya want, keep up the insults and illogical rants but know this .....DWI checkpoints do not work......””as one who doesn’t drink””..... I think your wrong . No check that....I know your wrong.
Stay Safe .....
I would not go so far as to say that 0.10% BAC is a "safe" way to be driving... I don't believe it is.. But, I can say... several years ago, when I took the time to really delve deeply into the statisitics... it was clear than drivers with 0.08% BAC were not at ANY greater risk of being in a fatal accident than were people with no alcohol reading at all.
At 0.10%, there was a slight uptick in the fatality rate... although, it was arguable as to whether is was 'significant'. As you got to 0.12% and above, the statistics changed dramatically....
Clearly to me.. 0.10% was VERY near the line of true risk.. and, given the innacuracies in measurement of impairment that I mentioned in earlier posts... not really a good place to begin applying severe punishment. I think, most people have come to understand this. And, that is why there is NOT universal support for harsher penalties.
Interestingly to me, I've made an attempt to find the same kinds of statistics now... and, it seems, the statistics are reported differently now. All I can find is, stats for OVER 0.08% BAC... nothing that breaks out the accident rates correlated with levels of intoxication. Perhaps, there is political agenda at work in the data collection?
I never attributed anything to MADD and only referred to issues I have first hand knowledge of.
You are the one that brought the numbers into the discussion, not I, all I did is correct your number. Sort of silly to intentionally post something wrong, because everyone KNOWS what it means, while you bash others as being incorrect. Can't have it both ways.
And now, you are trying to create another argument where there was none. No where did I call for total prohibition.
“Interestingly to me, I’ve made an attempt to find the same kinds of statistics now... and, it seems, the statistics are reported differently now. All I can find is, stats for OVER 0.08% BAC... nothing that breaks out the accident rates correlated with levels of intoxication. Perhaps, there is political agenda at work in the data collection?”
Remember that recent study that found most studies are biased?
Academia is corrupt. If Harvard published a study finding that gravity sucks, it would only make me wonder if we’d all been wrong all this time.
Don't know if there is an agenda or not, it's already impossible to find data that is acceptable to many, some won't accept anything, so I'm giving up.
I just know there is a problem by what I've seen and what I know about first hand.
“I never attributed anything to MADD”
I didn’t say you did. However, it is MADD and other crypto-prohibitionists who are driving the campaign for lower limits.
“and only referred to issues I have first hand knowledge of.”
So, you have participated in or witnessed a study, and with your own eyes seen the performance data as the subjects’ BAC rises? Right there in person, with your own eyes, before any “massaging” of the data?
“You are the one that brought the numbers into the discussion, not I, all I did is correct your number.”
Well, no, you contradicted my number. And what was your basis for that, if not the numbers published by MADD and other crypto-prohibitionists?
“Sort of silly to intentionally post something wrong, because everyone KNOWS what it means, while you bash others as being incorrect. Can’t have it both ways.”
The problem here is that you are misunderstanding what I am saying. At least, you keep attributing to me things I haven’t said.
“And now, you are trying to create another argument where there was none. No where did I call for total prohibition.”
Where did I say you did?
See my later post.. #392 These were fatality statistics from ~ 1985 in Texas... but, I don't think the time difference really changes the conclusions... People driving at >0.12% were clearly more likely to kill, and be killed.
Thanks for trying, but it was obvious to me after his response that a reasonable exchange with him wasn’t in the offing.
I was particularly amused by my guilt by proximate causation. That I provide a service within the environs means that I am somehow complicit in any mayhem that may occur there or originate from there. Amazing!
I wonder if that means that the public utility worker who restores power to the building after an outage shares my “guilt” as well? Or the city clerk who issues the license to occupy? How about the officer who responds to a disturbance but doesn’t blood everyone in the room?!
Stuff happens - always has, always will. Normal people take normal precautions. Cops pulling someone over because they are weaving is probable cause. Cops jacking someone because they left a bar’s parking lot is BS. Making certain cops have the proper tools to enforce the law is a reasonable precaution. Letting them blood people indiscriminately and with impunity is fascistic and promises unintended consequences that no one will like.
Nanny-staters can’t see past their noses and be content with reasonable precautions. Instead that have to keep picking at things until this society will more closely resemble a federal penitentiary than it does the world you & I were born into.
Dolts like Responsibility2nd want to hasten it along.
A pox on them!
I prefer to think of myself as a realist, who prefers a workable solution that does not preclude ALL drinking in America.
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.