Forced Catheterization Used In DUI Case (victim was not legally drunk)

NewsNet 5 ^ | September 3, 2009

[Redbob]

"I'd prefer to see this cop among the inmate population at his local correctional facility."

And THEN as a homless bum living under a bridge...

[annelizly]

I’m with you guys. but its a huge source of revenue for the cops, counties and states. so it will never go away.

[Redbob]

"My guess is that this man is exactly what I described."

MY guess is that this guy passed the Breathalyzer test and it pissed off the cop, who with his high school education and 8th-grade mentality, decided to "get even" with the guy.

[contemplator]

If the situation is as you described, are you saying that the measures the cop took were appropriate?

[CSM]

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.”

Quote by: Ayn Rand
(1905-1982) Author
Source: “Atlas Shrugged”, Part II, Chapter 3

[CSM]

They should aggressively persue all vehicular manslaughter offenses, as well as any instance where a driver causes other physical harm or property damage to another individual. They should persue them regardless of BAC. A person killed by another driver is not more dead because of a BAC level.

What the concentration on alcohol has done is allowed everyone to consider any non drunk driving activity to be “safe.” Most people think the only dangerous driving is drunk driving. Why can a person kill someone while texting and end up with less punishment than someone with a BAC of .08 that has not done any damage?

[Sudetenland]

There is no excuse for drunk driving, so get off of your high strawman horse. Drunk driving should be a first time felony with a mandatory 5 year sentence. Killing someone while driving drunk should be considered pre-meditated murder rather than negligent homicide.

[monday]

“....of 4-5 or more drinkiepoos in their system.”

lol “drinkiepoos”? I am guessing your social companions are two year olds.

[Beeline]

Good question, my comments purposely ignored that aspect
of the case. So much of that situation was akin to my exp.
with an alcoholic relative who was pulled over for drunk
driving, couldnt pass the roadside tests, but was cleared
of being intoxicated at the station. Turns out it was one
of those rare times in 30 years of alcoholism that he was
without a drink for 6-12 hrs. He smelled of alcohol, was driving badly and couldnt pass any of the roadside tests, but otherwise appeared respectable. The cop was baffled. I figured this story sounded baffling to people also, so I’d thought I’d throw in some background possibilities as to how
this story might arise. Afterall, the news story does sound like they are randomly torturing sober people with IV’s. Well at least not so random and the people at the Police Station obviously took ‘it looks like a duck’ to the extreme because they didnt want the guy to get away with anything.

I’m glad you asked the question because I’ve got a moron or two in this forum calling me vile names because they assume
I support the police action of inserting IV’s illegally into people. The problem with this forum is that the posts
are very temporal. Its usually not worth writing well written multi-paragraph comments because they are only read
for 1-2 days and then sort of slide off into neverland.
My comment was a short as I could make it...which is always what I do here.
So I’ve got all the angry people, jumping the gun, trying to read stuff into what I have written,not written, between the lines and everywhere else.

[Ignatz]

I'm all for civil liberties, but I am also in favor of throwing drunk drivers under the jails.

In 2007, 37% of automobile fatalities were caused by drunk driving.
That means 63% were NOT.
What do you desire for that 63%? Orange chicken and rice pilaf, maybe some air conditioning?

Source

[Ignatz]

"Drunk driving should be a first time felony with a mandatory 5 year sentence. Killing someone while driving drunk should be considered pre-meditated murder rather than negligent homicide."

Substitute "Eating-a-Big-Mac" for "Drunk" in your statement and ask yourself if the same legal penalty still should apply.
The try "Listening-to-the-radio" as a substitute.
Finally, try substituting "Talking-negatively about-the-Government".
Still standing my your statement, there, little tin horn?
Ok, last one: Substitute "High-cholesterol". After all, if they had a heart attack while driving and killed someone in another vehicle..."Hey, that was their premeditated CHOICE to drive with high cholesterol! To the gallows with them!"

Remember, 63% of fatal accidents are NOT alcohol-related.

[Sudetenland]

A false argument.

Are you seriously arguing that 37% is not a disproportionate number of fatal accidents compared to the number of drunk drivers or do you maintain that 37% of all drivers are drunk?

Driving under the influence is a voluntary and intentional act that places others at risk for their lives. It is always pre-meditated and it is always inexcusable. Your freedom to behave as you wish ends at the point where is directly endangers another person's life.

Which of those parents or children of someone who has lost his life because some jerk decided to get behind the wheel are you going to tell..."Oh well. Tough luck, he was drunk so it's no big deal?"

Do fatalities occur under other circumstances? Of course, but that does not negate the fact that those involving alcohol are avoidable and in a society of laws like the one in which we live and have lived for 233 years, citizens reserve the right to pass laws designed to control or punish those behaviors which endanger others.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Driving drunk is an abuse of that privilege and should be punished as such.

[Sudetenland]

I would suggest you substitute “randomly discharging a firearm in a crowded room.” It comes much closer to being a direct analogy....putz

[Sudetenland]

If you want to use all of those as analogies...which they not, very clearly, then you had better publish the percentage of deaths occurring due to that behavior.

How many people die as the result of a person driving an automobile having a heart attack due to high cholesterol...HUH? How about listening to the radio...got that number? How many 10%? 50%?

Either you are profoundly stupid or you are trolling either way, your argument fails.

[elkfersupper]

Define “drunk”.

[elkfersupper]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Where did you get this notion?

It is a basic right to peaceably travel from place to place by any conventional means in this country.

Wars were fought over this.

[steve-b]

I'd prefer to see this cop among the inmate population at his local correctional facility.

With the other inmates made aware that he's in for forcibly grabbing another man's dick....

[Earthdweller]

"you are an ignoramus who vents their anger on the internet"

Mark.

[investigateworld]

“drinkiepoos”
Prolly sexist of us in the C&R bidness, but we used that term frequently when dealing with females in DUI and domestic violence incidents where alcohol was involved ;^)