To Protect and to Serve II

#14,377
#14,377
Rickyvol77 said:
They don’t have the ability to “do whatever they want”. You make it sound like officers literally are taking blood from 100 people on a roadblock and that’s not what’s happening. In Knox county local jurisdictions take their prisoners to UTMC ED where Labcorp draws blood for them there. The only way this “moving” blood draw would really come into play is for THP who aren’t near any type of hospital
Click to expand...
I like that in Knox that the detainee must be taken to an actual medical facility.

Now let’s make sure we get the detainee actually in front of a judge, and we’re not dispensing justice via conference call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and hog88
#14,378
#14,378
Rasputin_Vol said:
That is correct. But even with that said, that should not be a reason for the state to have the ability to do whatever they want on the road to citizens.

Again, just because something is made legal, that doesn't make it right or just. Cops can take cash and take blood from you on the side of the road... what is the next step?
Click to expand...
The roadside cash and physical property seizures are bad enough.

But we’re going to enter your body and seize your blood? On the side of the road? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and hog88
#14,379
#14,379
85SugarVol said:
I like that in Knox that the detainee must be taken to an actual medical facility.

Now let’s make sure we get the detainee actually in front of a judge, and we’re not dispensing justice via conference call.
Click to expand...
They don’t have to be taken to a medical facility. They also have nurses at the jail. There is a contract and it’s quicker at UT
 
#14,381
#14,381
Rasputin_Vol said:
Here is the problem, for lack of a better term, we are seeing mission creep. We're seeing more and more gradual intrusion into how they conduct their business. Blood drawing is a step too far and it is going in the wrong direction. So now, that opens the door for even more intrusive measures in the name of safety. And we have already seen how far they are willing to go in the name of safety with regards to COVID.
Click to expand...
Just because I know what the law is doesn’t mean I don’t see what is happening under the color of law. False pc, the blue line, false reports, excessive use of force and loss of QI are now out in the light of day more than ever. It’s getting harder to hide. It still means that some are not of proper training and temperament to be police officers. There are good officers who do not go outside their oath. I know many of them and they are honest men. The “others” who are smarmy could care less about individual inalienable rights. They need the boot.
I don’t agree with civil statutes where there is no proven victim. It’s just a scheme to keep courts and lawyers busy and usurp an individuals inalienable right to conduct themselves. Unfortunately we have a country with a portion of people who take no self responsibility. Those who do not govern themselves will be governed.
Those who govern themselves responsibly should not have any public officers harassing them…. Zero and never. You are right that the line is moving further into invading rights as everyone is seen as guilty and whatever the objective is a few decimated individual freedoms is worth it. I do not agree with any individual rights being violated, I don’t give a crap how much you want to arrest Jimmy shithead, if you have to climb over me to do it. Find another way.
The .gov have given themselves emergency powers and they have overstepped. I never agreed and nobody I know has ever agreed with gov overreach unless they are nanny state lovers living in fear. Gov was established to protect the governed rights. No one I know giggles when they pay taxes. I personally don’t need the gov. But yet they have made it almost impossible to function daily with out some form of adhesion contract with them. Marriage license, drivers license, professional license, ss numbers all hook you up into the federal and state Gov. “ privileges”. They aren’t privileges, they are just a road to punishments and payment. The exact opposite of what gov was established for.
I’ll shut up now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolFaninFla and 85SugarVol
#14,395
#14,395
Rickyvol77 said:
Everyone has a choice. You do realize there are millions of people who don’t drive or own a car in this country
Click to expand...
Sure, but if you want to drive, board a flight, be gainfully employed and a countless number of other things, you have to have some form of ID. There’s no law on the books that says everyone must have ID but good luck without one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#14,396
#14,396
Rickyvol77 said:
I feel the violence every time I go the DMV and fill out my renewal forms. Lucky I’ve made it out alive with those brutal animals
Click to expand...
Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law’s violence. Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.
​
This is by no means an argument against having laws.​
It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal. Behind every exercise of law stands the sheriff – or the SWAT team – or if necessary the National Guard. Is this an exaggeration? Ask the family of Eric Garner, who died as a result of a decision to crack down on the sale of untaxed cigarettes. That’s the crime for which he was being arrested. Yes, yes, the police were the proximate cause of his death, but the crackdown was a political decree.​
​
The statute or regulation we like best carries the same risk that some violator will die at the hands of a law enforcement officer who will go too far. And whether that officer acts out of overzealousness, recklessness, or simply the need to make a fast choice to do the job right, the violence inherent in law will be on display. This seems to me the fundamental problem that none of us who do law for a living want to face.​
But all of us should.​
Click to expand...
​
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and hog88
#14,397
#14,397
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Sure, but if you want to drive, board a flight, be gainfully employed and a countless number of other things, you have to have some form of ID. There’s no law on the books that says everyone must have ID but good luck without one.
Click to expand...
You can get an ID that’s not a drivers license
 
#14,399
#14,399
Rickyvol77 said:
Eric garner didn’t die because he was seeking cigarettes. He died because he was resisting arrest and during the struggle his heart which was damaged from drug use and obesity gave out
Click to expand...
But absent the law that required the cops to crack down on untaxed cigarettes, they’d have no reason to contact him.
 
#14,400
#14,400
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
But absent the law that required the cops to crack down on untaxed cigarettes, they’d have no reason to contact him.
Click to expand...
His initial contact was because he was involved in a fight they were called to. I understand your point though because they recognized him for his many many times of breaking said law
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top