Cops Taser man in Hospital

[ARININ]

Arinin This is plain and to the point your an idiot.

Thanks that's pretty much expected coming from someone who cant come up with a logical response.

STFU i eat punks like you for breakfast with one hand tied behind my back!


YOU= FAILURE!

 

[ARININ]

ARININ watch your language or get out of here. Out of your 28 posts up to this point I think one of them is firearms related. The rest are "the sky is falling" type posts. This is a gun board and we keep it PG-13

NO problem you are correct that's fine I respect you in that!


And by the way the SKY IS FALLING OK IM DONE



and if you look at my post record you can see i called this global financial collapse back in July and it is a global financial collapse if you don't believe turn on CNBC and grab some popcorn the show is about to start. Its not that i want to happen i just relay know what im talking about and in all honestly I want to help warn people!

call me a modern day Paul Revere

I love this forum I love my LIfe I love my liberty and I love TRUE RED WHITE AND BLUE BLOODED PATRIOTS :


AND boobs and ROCK AND ROLL LOL hahah

PEACE

 

[huawilso]

If your done do us all a favor log off and never log in again. You obviously have a real problem with men who risk their lives every night to protect innocent people from thugs like you. God bless all the men and women who has sworn to protect and serve.

 

[ARININ]

If your done do us all a favor log off and never log in again. You obviously have a real problem with men who risk their lives every night to protect innocent people from thugs like you. God bless all the men and women who has sworn to protect and serve.

Try serving 2 tours in Iraq, my man before you talk to me about risking your life. Have you ever not been able to sleep for 4 days str8 cuz of incoming HODGIE 7.62

This isn't about who;s got a bigger D ok im not your enemy im your friend.

NOW DROP IT.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4"]YouTube - NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina[/ame]

 

[BloodEclipse]

Can someone cite the law that allows for the blood draw with a warrant? I have read lots of info and have not found that law. I did find this and it does not support a warrant to take blood.

IC 9-30-6-7
Refusal to submit to chemical tests or test results in prima facie evidence of intoxication; duties
of arresting officer
Sec. 7. (a) If a person refuses to submit to a chemical test, the arresting officer shall inform
the person that refusal will result in the suspension of the person's driving privileges.
(b) If a person refuses to submit to a chemical test after having been advised that the refusal
will result in the suspension of driving privileges or submits to a chemical test that results in
prima facie evidence of intoxication, the arresting officer shall do the following:
(1) Obtain the person's driver's license or permit if the person is in possession of the
document and issue a receipt valid until the initial hearing of the matter held under IC 35-33-7-1.
(2) Submit a probable cause affidavit to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the
alleged offense occurred.
(3) Send a copy of the probable cause affidavit submitted under subdivision (2) to the
bureau.​

As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.18.
Other states have this as well and this is what a Texas lawyer says about it.

How is this judicial activism?
The law and our Constitution forbid these forced blood draws. Texas prosecutors could have lobbied the legislature to pass a law and amend the Texas Constitution to allow these blood draws. Instead, prosecutor made an end run around the law and got pro-State judges to create new law.

What if you refuse to allow the officer's to take your blood?
As you would expect, this process born from tyranny, ends with police brutality. The police hold you down while a needle is stuck in your arm. Assaulting suspects to steal their blood is un-American and degrades the criminal justice system. The more we "get tough" on DWI, the more we treat DWI suspects like GITMO detainees.

The fact is being pulled over does not make you guilty of any crime. A jury decides that not a Law Enforcement Officer. I might also argue that forcing this upon you violates your 5th amendment rights as well. I know this was a heated discussion but if there is such a law I would just like it pointed out and I'll stand "Educated"

 

[huawilso]

Implied Consent Warning

YOu have to read the implied consent warning to them Their refusal results in the suspensionof their driving priviledges for one year. At that point you show a Judge enough probable cause and the judge will issue a warrant for blood. The warrant allows us to use whatever force needed to obtain blood. The purpose of blood is for lab work to confirm your probable cause that the person was indeed intoxicated on alcohol and or drugs.

 

[BloodEclipse]

YOu have to read the implied consent warning to them Their refusal results in the suspensionof their driving priviledges for one year. At that point you show a Judge enough probable cause and the judge will issue a warrant for blood. The warrant allows us to use whatever force needed to obtain blood. The purpose of blood is for lab work to confirm your probable cause that the person was indeed intoxicated on alcohol and or drugs.

No disrespect but show me the law that says this can happen. From what I read it has no such provisions, but I could be wrong I just want to see the law that gives the judge and law enforcement the authority to take blood against your will.

 

[NateIU10]

I love this forum I love my LIfe I love my liberty and I love TRUE RED WHITE AND BLUE BLOODED PATRIOTS :


AND boobs

Holy crap. This exact statement goes through my head every day.

 

[Crystalship1]

I foresee one less member very soon!!!

 

[Hiram2005]

Things that make you go hhhmmmmmm? Good morning all!

 

[GMGCSWRET]

ARININ
Your seriously defending this???????????????
Ill tell you what, you what never mind the time will come soon enough and cops that think they can go around abusing the public and pissing on peoples god given rights are gonna find out the hardway.
HOW COULD ANYONE FORCE SOMEONE TO SUBMIT TO A BLOOD TEST, YOU DO REALIZE HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL THAT IS DONT YOU?

I really hope that not everyone on this board is so DOWN on cops
you have a job to do
they have a job to do
you have laws/rules to follow
they have laws/rules to follow

if you dont like a law (STAND UP AND GROW A PAIR) and get it changed

 

[Crystalship1]

I really hope that not everyone on this board is so DOWN on cops

Nahhh...... Just a couple of cop-haters here. As you hang-around this forum, you'll be able to pick 'em out. Other than owning guns, you find them to be your basic uber-libbies who spout-off from behind the safety of their computers!!!

Most of the folks here are good, level-headed people.

 

[JetGirl]

Hey wait a second!!
Even if it's true that a warrant negates your 4th Amendment rights...
What about the 5th?? Wouldn't extracting DNA against your will be technically construed as forcing people to testify against themselves?

 

[SilentWarrior1]

ibtl?

 

[JetGirl]

ibtl?

Well I hope somebody actually addresses my question first. I really do want to know how that applies...
It's a fair question!

 

[indyjoe]

What about the 5th?? Wouldn\'t extracting DNA against your will be technically construed as forcing people to testify against themselves?

How is that different from required mouth swab for DNA testing, when evidence supports that the accused is likely enough to be the perpetrator? Granted, this is usually done at higher level crimes than OWI. However, what if the drunk driver crashed and killed a family. This is at minimum manslaughter and requires evidence to prove the case that could only be collected with blood for a good BAC. You can not be forced to testify against yourself, but Police are allowed to gather relevant evidence. In certain cases, the evidence is in the body of the accused. Another valid reason for a DNA swap would be semen matching in a rape case. While I agree that it can be a slippery slope, there are valid an justifiable reasons to require it.

 

[JetGirl]

How is that different from required mouth swab for DNA testing

I don't know if it *is* different. I'm asking if taking your DNA with a warrant and submitting it into evidence in court can be construed as forcing you to incriminate yourself against your will as outlined by the 5th Amendment?

 

[indyjoe]

I don\'t know if it *is* different. I\'m asking if taking your DNA with a warrant and submitting it into evidence in court can be construed as forcing you to incriminate yourself against your will as outlined by the 5th Amendment?

From what I have seen, DNA is different because of it being non-testimonial. So the answer, backed up by case law is NO. This is different than testimony and not protected by the 4th amendment if proper warrants are issued or 5th amendment, because it is not testimony. You can find a couple articles relating to cases about this. I have a problem with this type, because it does not seem to be addressing a specific crime, just building a database for future offenses: Does your spit have Fifth Amendment rights? - By Chris Suellentrop - Slate Magazine

 

[Integraholic]

I understand that a crime has been committed and that punishment is just.

what im saying is then in that case why not just make a OWI offense a automatic 5 year sentence or something.

THATS A MILLION TIMES BETTER than FORCIBLY ENTERING SOMEONES BODY FOR THEIR BLOOD>

DO you see what im saying.

YOU must see my logic.

So you dont think a blood test should be forced if the perp refuses any other form of testing, yet you want an automatic 5 year sentence for OWI. So if this was the way you wanted it, lets say you get pulled over for suspected drunk driving. If you decline any type of testing you'd just be automatically taken to jail for 5 years? So I'm a cop and I pull you over because I dont like your car. I ask you to take a BAC test. You refuse. I take you to jail for 5 years. Do you see the problem here?

 

[dburkhead]

This may come as a shock to you but warrants are not Unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If they had a warrant issued according to "probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation" and the "place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" as a sample of the person's blood, there is no Constitutional objection.

Not everything is a Constitutional issue.