Cops Taser man in Hospital

[SavageEagle]

So then it's ok for them to spinal tap a person because a judge issues a warrant for one? Except that a spinal tap is illegal and can only be taken if the person consents, no exceptions, no force allowed. Just like you can't get a warrant to shove a camera and light down someone's throat to see if they swallowed a bag of crack. And just like you can't force someone to puke up the bag to retrieve it as evidence.

Collecting DNA through an oral swab is different. It shouldn't be allowed because it violates the person and there are other ways to get DNA. But if you need a DNA swab then OBVIOUSLY they've done something along the lines of a felony or have a child who's paternity is in question. But to force a blood sample for OWI, OUI, DUI, or DWI shouldn't be allowed unless it involves a felony.

But seriously, do you honestly believe that we as human beings have the right to violate another human being just because they refuse to submit to a BAC? Sticking a needle in someone is violating someone whether you believe it or not. If you refuse and they do it anyway, just like rape, you are being violated.

We all have our opinions on this. I realize that. We are all hard headed too. Either way we are all right and we are all wrong. I think we ALL need to just step away from the political forums for a few days as all the threads I've seen and been in are getting a bit too heated and too many personal attacks being thrown around.

Can any certain section of threads be closed off for a couple days???

 

[dburkhead]

So then it's ok for them to spinal tap a person because a judge issues a warrant for one? Except that a spinal tap is illegal and can only be taken if the person consents, no exceptions, no force allowed. Just like you can't get a warrant to shove a camera and light down someone's throat to see if they swallowed a bag of crack. And just like you can't force someone to puke up the bag to retrieve it as evidence.

Collecting DNA through an oral swab is different. It shouldn't be allowed because it violates the person and there are other ways to get DNA. But if you need a DNA swab then OBVIOUSLY they've done something along the lines of a felony or have a child who's paternity is in question. But to force a blood sample for OWI, OUI, DUI, or DWI shouldn't be allowed unless it involves a felony.

But seriously, do you honestly believe that we as human beings have the right to violate another human being just because they refuse to submit to a BAC? Sticking a needle in someone is violating someone whether you believe it or not. If you refuse and they do it anyway, just like rape, you are being violated.

We all have our opinions on this. I realize that. We are all hard headed too. Either way we are all right and we are all wrong. I think we ALL need to just step away from the political forums for a few days as all the threads I've seen and been in are getting a bit too heated and too many personal attacks being thrown around.

Can any certain section of threads be closed off for a couple days???

Can you provide an example of where the results of a "spinal tap" would be actual evidence in a criminal case and there would be probable cause to believe that such evidence would be obtained by the spinal tap? Otherwise it's a straw man argument.

The "force a camera down the throat" is another strawman. That evidence can be had by simply holding the person until it appears. Blood alcohol (remember where this thread started?) is another matter.

Incidentally, there is a reason to prefer blood tests to breathalyzers. There was an interesting case of a lawyer illustrating how extreme care must be made in handling evidence and suspects. A drunk driving case. On reviewing the records, it was seen that there was a period of a few seconds--no more, where no one was observing the suspect. That, in and of itself, was enough to likely get an acquittal if the matter came to trial. Why, you may ask? It's really simple. During that time it was possible (not necessarily probable, but likely enough to create reasonable doubt) that the suspect regurgitated slightly into the back of his mouth. If there was alcohol in his stomach (almost certain given the circumstances), that would have driven the numbers on the breathalyzer higher than his actual blood alcohol level.

Incidentally, paternity suits are not criminal cases and are not germane to this topic of discussion.

There is no constitutional prohibition against "violating the person." Never has been. The right of people to be "secure in their persons, etc." is bypassed by properly attested warrants.

 

[quiggly]

Okay lets put some finality into this thread. Thanks for everyone showing interest. This is obviously an emotional issue.

Here is what we know.

It may be considered by "We the People" that the taking of Bodily fluids is an unconstitutional act.
I believe that the taking of blood from a person is backed up by Case Law to be valid with a warrant under law.
The only question that results here is that under the law, what constitutes reasonable force. Most would say that using a Taser is not reasonable force.

So first suggestion, NEVER get yourself into this situation by driving drunk! Did you HEAR THE NEVER!

2nd thing here would be as other people have suggested in other posts, object then comply. In an impaired stated however better judgment goes out the window a lot of times. If your rights are violated, it is better to fight them in court than to fight them outright. Officers will win this battle 100% of the time.

If you do not think this is constitutional, voice your opinion in the right environment. Write your legislators and ask them to change the law.

Also understand that we were reading an article written by a newspaper reporter that probably didn't have the whole story. The person that they used the taser on, could have had it used for a whole different reason. If the man was acting desperate he could have grabbed something to deter the officers and possibly was threating the officers. We just don't know that whole story.

So the fact that we did a lot of name calling and some of us need to work on keeping our emotions in check hopefully have learned something from this, which is the point now isn't it.

Cheers and .

 

[SavageEagle]

Can you provide an example of where the results of a "spinal tap" would be actual evidence in a criminal case and there would be probable cause to believe that such evidence would be obtained by the spinal tap?

Last thing I will say on this issue and it's only an example.

LSD is stored in the spinal cord for the rest of your life. Never goes away. Which is why LSD is so dangerous. The only way to test for LSD use is to do a spinal tap which is illegal by federal law because the person can be paralized for life.

As for the crackbag being swallowed... I can go 36 hours without taking a dump. No proof, no hold.

 

[ATM]

I can go 36 hours without taking a dump.

Lay off the MRE peanut butter, man!

 

[SavageEagle]

Just wanted to say thanks for closing the War on Drugs Thread. Seems nobody really wanted to discuss the issues at hand and just wanted to bash on someone for defending something. Really appreciate it guys. Thanks.

Sorry for the thread jack.

 

[finity]

1. Since when did most of the LE on here become liberals? Just shows how ridiculous it is using 'liberal' to somehow malign those who don't agree with you.

2. Forced bodily invasion is not on the liberal agenda. I think liberals stand for keeping the government out of your bodies & bedrooms.

3. If tasers didn't exist would the LE community promote beatings to force someone to comply? Try it sometime & lets see where it goes. Really, just beat a person to unconciousness to allow blood to be drawn just to see what happens. If the person resists enough & they die, well then I guess they had it coming, huh? Remember, its a DWI, not threatening anyone or trying to escape, etc., just saying "no, don't stick me with a needle". Where is the line to force compliance?

4. I also don't agree with the "submit or lose you license" concept either. Isn't that very similar to "if you refuse to allow me to search you then you will be convicted & go to jail because you are obviously guilty or you'd let me search you"?

 

[Integraholic]

Driving under the influence is definitely threatening other people. You're putting countless lives in danger when you drive intoxicated. In my opinion it's just as bad as swinging a knife at people or randomly pointing a firearm around. Now quit trying to stir the pot by rehashing old threads.