|
• Snow Closings
|
|
| Wed, Feb. 10 - - Mobile - RSS | |
| YOUR TOWN: Caroline | Culpeper | King George | Fredericksburg | Orange | Spotsylvania | Stafford | Westmoreland | |
|
|
Police officers shouldn't have to do blood draws
Police officers shouldn't have to do blood draws
Date published: 9/23/2009 Police officers shouldn't have to do blood draws This is regarding the article about training police in Idaho to draw blood from people suspected of drunken or drugged driving ["Officers look to draw blood for accurate DUI test," Sept. 14]. I would refuse to give blood except to an EMT, nurse, or doctor. I respect the police and what they do, but Supposedly, they will have to draw blood from 75 people before being turned loose Absolutely not. My veins are hard enough for nurses to find. They are deep, and they will move. A nurse called this "rolling." Sometimes they have had to try several places before they hit a vein. No, sir. This is putting too much on the police. Robert Willingham Stafford
Date published: 9/23/2009
My adhominem attack? Take a look at your opening salvo,
(posted by
Lobo
, Sep. 24, 2009 3:53 pm)
then put on your big boy pants and save the whine for someone who cares? Once upon a time the Supreme Court said Slavery was OK - but they were wrong! Now they're saying they can perform a surgical procedure on an unwilling participant and you're good to go with it? Incredible! You weren't Roger B. Taney in an earlier life, were you? Tell me something, do you have any rights you're unwilling to part with or is everything fair game in your world - so long as it comes down from on high?
and your idiocy exceeds expectation
(posted by
incognitoergosm
, Sep. 24, 2009 12:16 pm)
In your own response, ignoring the ad hominen attack, you answer my point exactly, and demonstrate an even more ridiculous level of lack of understanding or knowledge-please continue to give us something to laugh at! If the Supreme Court of both Idaho and the US don't think it is a violation of the Constituion, I would trust them over your egoistic lay knowledge. You apparently didn't understand or read the whole article, so just stick with watching Gerry Springer since your reading comprehension is lacking
incognitoergosm you might try curbing your ignorance:
(posted by
Lobo
, Sep. 24, 2009 9:22 am)
rather than displaying it so openly: Quote: "but they can forcefully take blood – a practice that’s been upheld by Idaho’s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court."
Link: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/sep/14/federal-dui-program-has-idaho-cops-drawing-blood/
As for the person who asked, "why not" . . . I couldn't begin to explain "why not" to someone as apparently clueless as you.
Lobo and unobservant one
(posted by
Ron_C
, Sep. 24, 2009 6:57 am)
You don't want to have to worry about being tested, then stay off the roads if under the influence. Where in the constitution does it say that a person has a right to hurtle a 2000 lb missle around the roadways when they are trashed? Implied consent means that in choosing to operate a vehicle you agree to them testing if they have reasonable suspicion of being under the influence. Noone is advocating random checkpoints to draw blood samples freom everyone.
Civil Rights Violation
(posted by
ObservantOne
, Sep. 24, 2009 12:50 am)
This type of action by police is a conflict of interest, not what they are trained for and a violation of the 4th, 5th and 9th amendments
|
 |
|||
|
|||
