Tennessee rolls out "No Refusal" blood draws

[steveh_131]

That's not the scenario I painted.

So? Answer the question.

One is a crime (a serious felony) and the other is an infraction...not even a crime. NOT THE SAME THING

The labels that we assign to these actions are irrelevant. They are laws because society has decided that they are dangerous behaviors.

Here are the arguments presented that disqualify the speeding officer from being a hypocrite:

1. He is willing to pay the price, and
2. Speeding isn't a big deal

If you choose #1, then you also must accept that the meth-manufacturing officer in the scenario above is not a hypocrite, and should be allowed to continue as a police officer once he has done his time.

If you choose #2, then why do we want to make it a big deal by taking money from people at gunpoint?

 

[ViperJock]

I think that if these laws are so silly that the cops can't even be bothered to follow them consistently, then they shouldn't enforce them.

Like a doctor who smokes. Should they not be able to tell people it is bad for them? It is bad for them,even if the doctor does it he still has a responsibility to tell the patient they should quit. Its their job to enforce it. If they break laws they should get enforced upon. Expecting anyone to be 100% perfect even in their own job is pretty silly.

 

[MikeDVB]

The labels that we assign to these actions are irrelevant.

At this point you're just arguing to argue - you've repeated your same points over and over numerous ways and no matter what you say - the responses are going to be the same. No matter what we say back - you're not going to change your mind.

I'm done with you - hopefully others will see what a lost cause you are and quit taking your bait as well.

 

[steveh_131]

Like a doctor who smokes. Should they not be able to tell people it is bad for them? It is bad for them,even if the doctor does it he still has a responsibility to tell the patient they should quit. Its their job to enforce it. If they break laws they should get enforced upon. Expecting anyone to be 100% perfect even in their own job is pretty silly.

This is not a valid analogy, because the doctor does not force me to quit, nor does he punish me for failing to quit.

Passing along information is quite different than locking someone in a cage.

It's cool, guys. I know that this system isn't going anywhere. There is too much revenue to be generated. Keep taxing commuters for doing the same things that you probably do on a daily basis.

I'm going to stop hijacking this thread now. Let's get back to discussing the vampires with badges.

 

[Bunnykid68]

How often do officers that get pulled over for an infraction actually get a ticket? And if they do how often does the ticket go away? My brother has gotten tickets taken care of here in Evansville because he knows a deputy and another gentleman I know has gotten several speeding tickets taken care of because his son is a deputy. That type of thing would be the only hypocrisy I see.

20 years ago I got a ticket in KY fixed without even asking

 

[ViperJock]

This is not a valid analogy, because the doctor does not force me to quit, nor does he punish me for failing to quit.

Passing along information is quite different than locking someone in a cage.

It's cool, guys. I know that this system isn't going anywhere. There is too much revenue to be generated. Keep taxing commuters for doing the same things that you probably do on a daily basis.

I'm going to stop hijacking this thread now. Let's get back to discussing the vampires with badges.

It is a valid analogy by the rules you made; which were that only someone who walks the walk should be able to do anything about it. The relative difference in penalties or consequences is irrelevant. How about this one, my kids don't have to go to bed at 9 because I don't. I'm in a position to punish them. Or can't I, because I stay up until 10. My kids use the same argument you are. "Not fair, you don't go to bed." Its actually an even better example because if I don't go to bed no one can punish me at all, muahahah.

ITs their job. Getoverit. They should run the same risk as we do for disobeying. As long as they do, you really have no basis to complain. IF they aren't held to the law,well then, now we have something to talk about.

 

[steveh_131]

It is a valid analogy by the rules you made; which were that only someone who walks the walk should be able to do anything about it.

Either the laws are important or they aren't. If they are important enough to screw up peoples' lives over, then they are important enough for the enforcers to follow themselves.

The relative difference in penalties or consequences is irrelevant. How about this one, my kids don't have to go to bed at 9 because I don't. I'm in a position to punish them. Or can't I, because I stay up until 10. My kids use the same argument you are. "Not fair, you don't go to bed." Its actually an even better example because if I don't go to bed no one can punish me at all, muahahah.

ITs their job. Getoverit. They should run the same risk as we do for disobeying. As long as they do, you really have no basis to complain. IF they aren't held to the law,well then, now we have something to talk about.

And this illuminates the entire issue. We really do view the government as our parents. We think we're the 'good kids', because we stay out of trouble. Then we mock the 'bad kids' who don't follow the rules.

But the government has no place as our 'parents', telling us when to go to bed. The government's place is to hold us responsible when our actions cause harm to another.

 

[ViperJock]

Either the laws are important or they aren't. If they are important enough to screw up peoples' lives over, then they are important enough for the enforcers to follow themselves.



And this illuminates the entire issue. We really do view the government as our parents. We think we're the 'good kids', because we stay out of trouble. Then we mock the 'bad kids' who don't follow the rules.

But the government has no place as our 'parents', telling us when to go to bed. The government's place is to hold us responsible when our actions cause harm to another.

I agree with this. What I don't see is the "only the perfect cop has the right to arrest me thing." In a perfect world...but then,we wouldn't need cops.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

Didnt realize Tennessee has been doing this for two years now.

Tennessee troopers set up 'no refusal' checkpoints with mandatory blood draws through Jan. 4 - THOMAS DISHAW.COM

 

[Denny347]

Didnt realize Tennessee has been doing this for two years now.

Tennessee troopers set up 'no refusal' checkpoints with mandatory blood draws through Jan. 4 - THOMAS DISHAW.COM

Yeah, they will seek search warrants for blood draws...NAZI'S!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[littletommy]

I haven't read much on this, but from what I have seen, how is this much, if any different than the way it's done here? Don't they draw blood from some people suspected of dui here in Indiana? It doesn't sound like they are pulling people over and demanding blood, just that it may happen if they think you are impared? Dunno, Like I said, haven't spent much time reading up on it.

 

[Denny347]

I haven't read much on this, but from what I have seen, how is this much, if any different than the way it's done here? Don't they draw blood from some people suspected of dui here in Indiana? It doesn't sound like they are pulling people over and demanding blood, just that it may happen if they think you are impared? Dunno, Like I said, haven't spent much time reading up on it.

Yes, it's a misleading title...go figure. When PC exists that a driver is impaired, in Indiana, we read them Indiana Implied Consent. It starts, "I have PROBABLE CAUSE". Soooooo, use that PC to apply for a warrant for a blood draw. I fail to see the illegality of this as many tout. The title is purposefully misleading, causing one to believe that those stopped will get their blood drawn as part of the stop.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yes, it's a misleading title...go figure. When PC exists that a driver is impaired, in Indiana, we read them Indiana Implied Consent. It starts, "I have PROBABLE CAUSE". Soooooo, use that PC to apply for a warrant for a blood draw. I fail to see the illegality of this as many tout. The title is purposefully misleading, causing one to believe that those stopped will get their blood drawn as part of the stop.

Most disturbing to me is that the thread title is entirely plausible, at least so far as Tennessee is concerned. After all, this is the state that ganged up with the TSA to literally stop every truck going down the interstate for an unannounced search. Not an already constitutionally questionable* regular inspection, but a bumper to bumper, internal and external, pavement to the tops of the pipes search. So, that said, I find it difficult to make an argument that such a thing is implausible. It may or may not be the case, at least not this time, but certainly is plausible. Also worth mention is a case I read about in Washington State in which a driver blew less than the legal limit, the officers lied, and hauled him in for an involuntary blood draw and catheterization to extract a urine sample.**

* The Supremes ruled, back in the 70s that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to trucks and truck drivers because they are in a highly-regulated industry, in other words, the SC invented the notion that having either an act of congress or a regulation set in place by unaccountable bureaucrats is sufficient to define you into a subset of the population to whom the Constitution does not apply.

**I know that you are not like this and the people you know and work with are not like this, but that doesn't change the fact that plenty of us have to deal with law officers who ARE like that, which can often make mutual understanding more difficult than it needs to be. Particularly troublesome are the combination of you and those like you left to feel a general ill will that you certainly don't deserve, and on the other hand, based on the image in the mirror, likely to have reservations about believing or at least believing the scope of some very real and dangerous problems.

 

[Route 45]

I find this to be hypocritical.

So what?

 

[littletommy]

So what?

I like your style.