Of the Bill of Rights?

[Missileman]

Ok, show proof of the ear infection, does he have anything from any doctor PRIOR to the incident, that proves a doctor diagnosed him with an ear infection. NO, ok, Ithought not, you cant just make up lies without proof supporting it

He has a speech impediment, funny, we have witnesses here who will testify they have spoken to him before and he has no speech impediment, please bring in some people ready to perjure themselves, who will claim he has a speech impediment

any more lies to claim to?

The concept is innocent until proven guilty. The state would have to prove the absence of an ear infection, not the other way around. With no BAT to back up the prosecution's case, a jury might find reasonable doubt.

[Missileman]

They don't need the refusal to take a breath test to be evidence in another crime,

they can make the refusal itself an illegal act, and make a penalty for that act itself.

As I already stated, no legislature is going to make refusing the breath test a felony...ain't gonna happen.

[fj1200]

Or consent.

Yeah.

Dude...the breath test requires the cooperation and active participation of the testee. You can't just wave something in front of the perps face and get a result.

Have they developed technology to transport a blood sample? Wow, Star Trek is here early.

[revelarts]

2 offenses
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CMqTX3B_LJo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


breath test
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/03OPcn80Uzs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Lying in court about "ear infections" can be easier dealt with by a requirement in the law that a stated a medical condition must be proven as an excuse against a drunk driving charge.
But Most of the video's I've seen of field sobriety test an "ear infection" excuse wouldn't move the determination to the reasonable doubt level in most peoples minds. If judges or juries are buying that on a regular basis it's their own fault.

And good lawyer could acquit Stalin off of a genocide charge, that's just part of the system we have to live with.

Still not sure why some are pushing Blood test.

In the case where there has been an accident and especially with injury, I mention before, In that case a blood test by paramedics is appropriate and maybe should be mandatory.
Whats the difference here?
HARM.
A crime where property or persons have been hurt. Past tense, not future crime.

But If the concern is about drunk driving and it's imperative that we make it stop at all cost maybe we should make drinking illegal.
No?
We tried that. OK.
Drinking is a problem but we can't make it completely safe without trampling rights. And in this case (as most others) there is no need for forced blood test. There are real options.

It's going on now and it's only a mater of time before some police are sued for causing infections or some serious medical problem. Police shouldn't be put in the position of part time medics. They've got enough to do IMO.

[Missileman]

Yeah.



Have they developed technology to transport a blood sample? Wow, Star Trek is here early.

You're the one who keeps asking why we can't compel someone to do a breath test.

[Missileman]

2 offenses
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CMqTX3B_LJo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


breath test
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/03OPcn80Uzs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Lying in court about "ear infections" can be easier dealt with by a requirement in the law that a stated a medical condition must be proven as an excuse against a drunk driving charge.
But Most of the video's I've seen of field sobriety test an "ear infection" excuse wouldn't move the determination to the reasonable doubt level in most peoples minds. If judges or juries are buying that on a regular basis it's their own fault.

And good lawyer could acquit Stalin off of a genocide charge, that's just part of the system we have to live with.

Still not sure why some are pushing Blood test.

In the case where there has been an accident and especially with injury, I mention before, In that case a blood test by paramedics is appropriate and maybe should be mandatory.
Whats the difference here?
HARM.
A crime where property or persons have been hurt. Past tense, not future crime.

But If the concern is about drunk driving and it's imperative that we make it stop at all cost maybe we should make drinking illegal.
No?
We tried that. OK.
Drinking is a problem but we can't make it completely safe without trampling rights. And in this case (as most others) there is no need for forced blood test. There are real options.

It's going on now and it's only a mater of time before some police are sued for causing infections or some serious medical problem. Police shouldn't be put in the position of part time medics. They've got enough to do IMO.

So your hangup is with who draws the blood? A trained phlebotomist is just as qualified to draw blood as a paramedic, a nurse, or an MD...maybe more qualified than an MD.

As for your harm argument, I call bullshit. Waiting until after a habitual drunk driver has injured or killed someone to get serious about prosecuting him is one of the most stupid concepts I've seen written down.

[revelarts]

As for your harm argument, I call bullshit. Waiting until after a habitual drunk driver has injured or killed someone to get serious about prosecuting him is one of the most stupid concepts I've seen written down.

So make alcohol illegal missile. Boycott the beer and wine makers. Shut down the bars.
A real preemptive strike.

[revelarts]

...
As for your harm argument, I call bullshit. Waiting until after a habitual drunk driver has injured or killed someone to get serious about prosecuting him is one of the most stupid concepts I've seen written down.

Are you Saying that
the crime of Driving Drunk is EQUAL to the crime of Driving Drunk and hurting someone and EQUAL to the crime of Driving Drunk and killing someone?

So we should treat the drunk driver AS IF he's already killed someone?
Are you?

[Missileman]

So make alcohol illegal missile. Boycott the beer and wine makers. Shut down the bars.
A real preemptive strike.

You can drink without driving...what other stupid strawman ya wanna drag out?

[Missileman]

Are you Saying that
the crime of Driving Drunk is EQUAL to the crime of Driving Drunk and hurting someone and EQUAL to the crime of Driving Drunk and killing someone?

So we should treat the drunk driver AS IF he's already killed someone?
Are you?

I have been and am still saying that the state needs to collect the evidence necessary to convict ALL drunk drivers. You're the one who thinks it's okay to let them slide unless they've hurt or killed someone.

[revelarts]

You can drink without driving...what other stupid strawman ya wanna drag out?

And you can arrest and prosecute a drunk driver without a forced blood test Missile.

[revelarts]

I have been and am still saying that the state needs to collect the evidence necessary to convict ALL drunk drivers. You're the one who thinks it's okay to let them slide unless they've hurt or killed someone.

I have said you don't need a mandatory Blood test to get a convicting for drunk driving. There's PLENTY of other evidence that can be brought to bear without crossing that line.

Somehow in you mind a blood test is the FINAL solution.
It's a Bad one an unconstitutional one. Saving lives is a nobel goal but saving our freedoms , especially on today's political climate is just as important.
I hate to put it this way but most here consider going to war to fight for our freedoms as noble and important even to the point of unintended "collateral" damage to property and persons.
Well the police swear an oath to defend the constitution form all enemies foreign and domestic as well.
In many cases, this being one, we have a choice.
Defend freedom (and to concede the small possibly of your point Missile ) allow a very few drunk driver to get away.
There is no perfect solution but we should find every legal option to control and stop the drunk driver. But again the state may not be our best weapon here.

[Missileman]

And you can arrest and prosecute a drunk driver without a forced blood test Missile.

The blood is being drawn with implied consent after establishing probable cause. No one is holding a gun to a person's head and making them operate a vehicle while drunk in these states.

[Missileman]

It's a Bad one an unconstitutional one.

A court has ruled this unconstitutional?

[LuvRPgrl]

The concept is innocent until proven guilty. The state would have to prove the absence of an ear infection, not the other way around. With no BAT to back up the prosecution's case, a jury might find reasonable doubt.

Wow,,,you are some piece of work sometimes.

First you claim if a person doesnt give the breat test, then it proves their guilt, and then you claim innocent until proven guilty,,,,


Im really laughing my ass off right now.


Uhhh, dude, an ear infection is neither a guilty nor innocent issue, its something the DEFENDENT CLAIMED, and hence, he now has the burden of proof, IF he is going to make that claim,

Sheesh,