Leiren
Posts: 206
Joined: 8/16/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: igor2003 Fast Reply I live in Idaho, near Boise, and saw this on the news a couple of nights ago. As I remember it the officers taking the blood do have to take a course in the proper way of doing so. Also, the blood will be taken at the jail...not in the field at the site of the traffic stop. That way, if extra "help" is needed in holding the prisoner still they won't have to wait for extra squad cars to arrive. I thought it was a stupid idea when I saw it on the news, and still do thnk it is a stupid idea. The good thing is, I don't drink, so shouldn't have to worry about it either way, but with the mentality of the local officials, who knows? Thanks for the info, but that's not the way the original article read in the OP. It's still my opinion that if a cop thinks someone is drunk, and that person refuses a breath test then the most intelligent thing to do is transport the suspected drunk to a local hospital and allow medical professionals to draw the blood. Where I live there are two hospitals less than ten minutes in either direction. Ten minutes won't affect the blood alcohol level. And again, I get back to this: If a driver is allowed to refuse a breath test (even though by doing so they forfeit their license for several months), they should also be allowed to refuse to have some thugs forcibly drawing blood from their veins. Same thing goes for the cops detaining someone and hauling them off to the nearest hospital. If a person can legally refuse a breath test, they should legally be allowed to refuse to be manhandled to the nearest hospital. Granted, they would lose their driver's license for several months in either case. But as far as I know, the United States has not yet turned into a fascist state where an individual cop can over run the Constitutional rights of any American citizen.
_____________________________
We have forgotten how to walk softly on the earth as its other creatures do.
|