Cops Taser man in Hospital

[dburkhead]

Forcing someone to provide DNA or blood or blow for a BAC is like forcing someone to testify, verbal or written. It's like forcing someone to tell where they hid they body.

No. It's not. You can say that all you want but it remains untrue. It's more like taking the fingerprints and picture of someone when you arrest them, getting a description, having the victim look at them in a line-up, etc.

Being a witness and physical evidence are two entirely different things. The Constitution forbids one. It does not forbid the other.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Because you want to try to end a situation that does not require lethal force with a less than lethal option.

What if we substituted OC Spray for the taser? Would that be ok with you?

Ok maybe I didn't detail my broad statement enough.
I understand less than lethal. If a guy has a knife at a distance less than lethal should be used if available. If not lethal is justified.
We seem to accept the use of a Taser to make someone comply and not because they are a danger to themselves or others.
We watched the videos showing tasers for traffic stops and such. I do not agree that those are warranted.
We just had one where a guy on a ledge was tasered and fell to his death.
Yes the Taser is a less than lethal weapon but it is still a weapon and needs to follow the same rules for engagement.
As far as the OC spray why would it be used unless someone was a threat?
Don't get me wrong, when there exists a threat, then the use of force in what ever form is justified. What use of force is at the discretion of the LEO.

 

[Fenway]

If a guy has a knife I'm pulling my gun. I'm not a cop and I'm not trying to be rude but I just don't understand what you are getting at Blood Eclipse. I'll keep watching this thread.

Ok maybe I didn't detail my broad statement enough.
I understand less than lethal. If a guy has a knife at a distance less than lethal should be used if available. If not lethal is justified.
We seem to accept the use of a Taser to make someone comply and not because they are a danger to themselves or others.
We watched the videos showing tasers for traffic stops and such. I do not agree that those are warranted.
We just had one where a guy on a ledge was tasered and fell to his death.
Yes the Taser is a less than lethal weapon but it is still a weapon and needs to follow the same rules for engagement.
As far as the OC spray why would it be used unless someone was a threat?
Don't get me wrong, when there exists a threat, then the use of force in what ever form is justified. What use of force is at the discretion of the LEO.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I'm saying that just because a guy won't sign a traffic ticket is no reason to taser him
Again unless there is a threat of harm to himself or others, the taser needs to remain holstered.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Fenway this is what I was looking for and it seems do be a department by department policy. Seems to me it needs to be defined at a State level.
http://www.less-lethal.org/docs/22/UseofForcePolicyLaPorteCo.pdf

 

[indyjoe]

I personally have a problem with the idea that a Taser is less than lethal. There is a percentage of deaths from it. This has been covered up by the companies making them to the point that some coroners cannot list taser as the cause of death. But enough thread jacking...

We still are at the sticky situation involving forcibly taking a blood sample. You can't put him in jail until he allows it, because that would destroy the evidence. They have a legal right to get the blood, backed up by legal precedent on interpretation of the 4th and 5th amendments (covered earlier in the thread.) The only unknown is what they can do to complete this legal task of drawing the blood sample.

 

[right winger]

THIS IS FING ********

HAVE YOU EVER READ THE CONSTITUTION OR THE BILL OF RIGHTS???


"this happens everyweek where you work"?

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU???

ARE YOU COOL WITH BEING A FING NAZI FACSIT

YOU MAKE ME SICK, NO BODY TAKES MY BLOD NOBODY!!!! ILL FING PUT YOUR ASS DOWN IF YOU TRY

HAS AMERICA SERIOUSLY COME TO THIS GOD HELP US ALL

You will lose. And the police will use what ever means they need to obtain the sample.

 

[ARININ]

Thanks to everyone that sees my logic, i have heard my opinion backed up by some fairly intelligent discourse and all i hear on the other side is the grunts and groggels of a tyrannic BULLYCLUB that will use whatever
anti-logic is necessary to perpetuate their sick and sadistic Jollys. Spitting in the face of the CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

TRAITORS AND TREASONists as far as i am concerned.

I guarantee the side defending this BS will be the same Jerks who will kick your door down and confiscate your guns when martial law get put into effect.

They will never question the orders given to them they will never think for them selves they are a breed of modern day SS and trust me when TSHTF.

Its gonna be TRUE RED BLOODED AMERICANS THAT LOVE FREEDOM AND WILL DIE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION

VS

THE STAZI SS that are so dumb that they don't even know there the
badguys.

Not all cops are bad, but these people are EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO THEMSELVES AND TO AMERICA>

SO GO SHAVE YOUR HEAD AND FOLLOW YOUR ORDERS!!!

WHen the planned economic collapse takes shape and anarchy takes hold these jerks will belive that they are dooing justice by enforcing the NWO agenda. But their briefings form HOMELAND SECURITY WILL STATE THAT WE ARE ALL JUST "DOMESTIC TERRORISTS"

ANYTHING OR ANYONE THAT QUESTIONS THE TYRANICAL SYSTEM WILL BE DEEMED a TERRORIST

SAD SAD SAD SAD SAD

Bottom line THERE WILL ALLWASY BE MORE OF US THAN YOU!!

ANd when the REAL AMERICAN PATRIOTS LIKE MY SELF JOIN FORCES IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES YOU AND YOUR BIG BLACK RIOT SUITS AND BLACKED OUT CROWN VICS WONT STAND A CHANCE.

I bet you all got Mcain signs in your front yard dont you SUCKERS!

yup and GWB is the bestes isnt he,

WAKE UP !!!!!!!!

THIS MAKES ME SO FRUSTRATED, cuz i garuntee you all you guys that i am tottaly against are deep down just like me, EXCEPT YOUR TO STUPID TO REALISE YOUR BEING USED AS THE ENFORCERS OF A CORRUPT AND TYRANICAL SYSTEM!!!! GOD DONT YOU GET IT!!!!

 

[dburkhead]

Thanks to everyone that sees my logic, i have heard my opinion backed up by some fairly intelligent discourse and all i hear on the other side is the grunts and groggels of a....

Ah, yes, the old "intelligent discourse" = "whatever agrees with me" coupled with "whatever disagrees with me" = "gunts and groggels" (What's a "groggel" BTW? I can't seem to find it in the dictionary.)

All of this wrapped around an attempt to substitute emotion for logic--no different in principle from the liberal penchant for "waving the bloody shirt."

These are tactics that are generally relegated to situations where a person doesn't have a logical leg to stand on.

 

[Crystalship1]

Arnin = Liberal
And before you go calling us stupid, you might want to either to learn to spell at the 3rd grade level or at least use a spell checker to appear less unintelligent.

Here... here's a site that you might enjoy more than here: CPUSA Online -

 

[HipShooter]

I dont see how Arnin is a liberal, Maybe a Libertarian?

WHEN THE UNJUST BECOMES LAW REBELLION BECOMES DUTY.
The More Bullcrap you Police and Military help Enforce the more likely you will see the end of my freedom loving shotgun barrel.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Enough with the threats, misspellings, and uneducated responses.

PLEASE NO MORE CAPS. I can read your post just fine.

I swear "liberal" gets thrown around here like "witch" did in 1692. If all you have is to call someone a liberal then please finds something else to say. You are probibly wrong.

I haven't been on in a while and I got to read through 3 pages of intelligent posts. 5 pages of name calling and what not!

Sorry for jacking everyone's thread. Please continue.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I work in a hospital and there is no reason they had to taser the man IMHO. We (NWI hospital) regularly have to wrestle mental patients into beds to prevent harming themselves or others. All while not harming anyone during the process. The taser is because someone was lazy. If 2 skinny male nurses can wrestle a 200lb coke addict to a bed then cops can get a drunk guy's blood without tasering him.

Just my

 

[ARININ]

I dont see how Arnin is a liberal, Maybe a Libertarian?

WHEN THE UNJUST BECOMES LAW REBELLION BECOMES DUTY.
The More Bullcrap you Police and Military help Enforce the more likely you will see the end of my freedom loving shotgun barrel.

Yes exactly I would consider myself more libertarian than anything else. Rather than postulate any sort of valid retort, the opposition instead wants to focus on irrelevant and unimportant spelling and caps lock errors. This is usually the case when a severe blow has been dealt to the opposing side's argument and they can no longer respond to the claims made logically.

When your opposition can only respond with Name calling and pointing out spelling errors, you have generally won the argument. After all I enjoying this thread immensely, I mean isn't political discourse what has made us the free strong proud nation we are or were.

It fails me to no end that the possibility people get so hung up on grammar and spelling, the bottom line is that I effectively communicated that exact same point and didn't take 10 minutes to do so, in addition more than likely avoided NSA filters which becuase of my stand on this and many issues would love to label me as a domestic insurgent.

My point being don't you cops just wanna bash my skull in? well the judges and the corrupt system are getting geared for you to do just that, to quell and obliterate all forms of dissent.

The sooner you realize that your handlers are exactly what our forefathers warned of the better we will all be, its not to late to change your ways.

Ohh and to add the icing to the cake im sure they will all defend this too.....

Bush deploys military in the US for active duty as federal response force
Bush deploys military in the US for active duty as federal response force - Wikinews, the free news source

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOb4eybBGao[/ame]

Just remember this my chums...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock

 

[indyjoe]

Arinin. Thank you for finally not yelling at us. You seem to assume there is no "retort" that we are just considering spelling and caps lock errors. You have never commented on why I disagree with you. It involves facts in all my postings and based on law. Should I say that your only retort was ignoring factual posts?

My point being don't you cops just wanna bash my skull in?

Wow. Hyperbole much.

This thread is about a certain situation of a man being forced to give blood as evidence. Some how you have changed it to being about starting the next revolution. You start off by yelling about the constitution. You don't seem to care about the intelligent responses telling you exactly why the Constitution allows for this. Somehow this is name calling.

But, I do appreciate you typing like someone who cares what they post. It DOES make things easier to read.

 

[dburkhead]

[ 8< ]
Rather than postulate any sort of valid retort, the opposition instead wants to focus on irrelevant and unimportant spelling and caps lock errors.
[ 8< ]

That turns out to be the case. You have been given valid retorts. You just choose to ignore them.

First the 4th Amendment:
"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."

There is nothing in there that, in a properly sworn warrant, forbids blood samples from being a "thing to be seized."

Second, the 5th Amendment argument:
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

The key word here is "witness." Despite the arguments made by some here, providing physical evidence is not part of being a witness. The case Holt v. United States, clarified that 98 years ago. The only prohibition against being compelled to give evidence is against "communications." The prohibition is not against physical evidence. If you want to argue otherwise, you cannot just make the claim and expect to be taken seriously. You have to be able to go through the arguments in the decision and point out why they are wrong. Otherwise you're just some guy on the Internet spouting off.

 

[SavageEagle]

Wow, what a thread. ARININ makes many good points. It is unConstitutional to take my blood either by force or by warrant. Besides, if a judge issues a warrant to take my penis because it's bigger than his and he doesn't like it, does that make it right? Of Course Not! All I'm saying is that there are other ways to get DNA. If they need to prove I was drunk driving why not issue a warrant for my breathe? Why do they have to take my blood? I'll gladly give my breathe, but you'll have to kill me before you stick a needle in my arm. Needles go NOWHERE near me unless it's to save my life. Period.

As for Judge's and making and interperating the law... You wouldn't say that the first or second amendment is open to interpretation. So why would it be ok to do so with any other law? It's not. Judges must go by what the Constitutional law says, period. They may rule a law unConstitutional, but they may not interperate any law to fit any case. The law is the law is the law. It states this, not this. If it isn't covered in the law, then it's not enforceable. Period.

 

[Fenway]

I think we have just hit an all time low in this forum.

if a judge issues a warrant to take my penis because it's bigger than his and he doesn't like it, does that make it right?

 

[SavageEagle]

I think we have just hit an all time low in this forum.

Thank you, Thank you! I knew I was good for something!

 

[dburkhead]

Wow, what a thread. ARININ makes many good points. It is unConstitutional to take my blood either by force or by warrant. Besides, if a judge issues a warrant to take my penis because it's bigger than his and he doesn't like it, does that make it right? Of Course Not! All I'm saying is that there are other ways to get DNA. If they need to prove I was drunk driving why not issue a warrant for my breathe? Why do they have to take my blood? I'll gladly give my breathe, but you'll have to kill me before you stick a needle in my arm. Needles go NOWHERE near me unless it's to save my life. Period.

As for Judge's and making and interperating the law... You wouldn't say that the first or second amendment is open to interpretation. So why would it be ok to do so with any other law? It's not. Judges must go by what the Constitutional law says, period. They may rule a law unConstitutional, but they may not interperate any law to fit any case. The law is the law is the law. It states this, not this. If it isn't covered in the law, then it's not enforceable. Period.

"Interpretation" is happening entirely on the case of folk claiming that the Constitution forbids a warrant, properly executed according to law, from taking blood samples. It's the functional equivalent of saying that the 2nd gives you the "right" to shoot anyone you want. The 4th gives one protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" with "unreasonble" defined in terms of Probable Cause and warrants (which, incidentally, eliminates your "penis" example. Closest real example might be to order measurement of a suspect's, um, equipment to see if the suspect "measured up" to the actual culprit.). The 5th protects against being compelled to be a witness with being a witness defined in terms of communications and testimony (the kinds of things a witness provides) not physical evidence.

If one allows these arguments to hold, then try to explain to me how _any_ identifying characteristic of a person could be allowed. If taking a blood sample is compelling to be a witness against himself, so is taking a picture to show the victim so the victim can say "yes, that's the man who did it" or "no, it was someone else," and so is taking fingerprints to compare with those found at the crime scene, and so is putting a suspect in a line-up or even having the suspect present at the trial. All of them are some means of "compelling" the suspect to provide some evidence (his appearance or other identifying information) which might incriminate him in the crime.

There is no distinguishable line between those items and taking a blood sample. There is a distinguishable line between physical evidence and communications/testimony.

The difference comes down to the nature of the evidence. Communications/testimony, when "compelled" are very easily tainted. There are very few people in the world who, given enough "working on" by others who cannot be convinced to confess to just about anything. Physical evidence stands on its own and that taken from the suspect himself (or herself) is neither more nor less likely to be "tainted" than any other.

The fifth amendmen says a person may not be compelled to be a witness against himself. It does not say that evidence cannot be collected from a person to use against him. That is an important distinction. Just like the distinction between passing laws and "due process." (Where passing laws, even having the Supreme Court explicitly rule the law Constitutional, does not constitute "due process," but rather the process of applying the law, the accused answering in court, the steps, such as warrants, to insure that the accused's rights are not violated, the fair trial, and, if convicted, a sentence that does not qualify as "cruel and unusual punishment," those constitute "due process.")

Again, I refer you to Holt v. US on the subject of the State being able to compell the collection of physical evidence from a person. If you really want to seriously question the constitutionality of the taking of physical evidence from the person of a suspect in a criminal case, then you really need to be familiar with Holt v. US and other related cases and be prepared to argue why they were wrong. Just flately stating "it's unconstitutional" doesn't cut it.