PDA

View Full Version : Forced Catheterization Used In DUI Case


Alabamy
September 4th, 2009, 08:35 PM
Man pulled over for DUI, blows below legal limit. Police forcibly catheterize him to draw urine and is still below the legal limit. Then they charge him with obstruction of justice. (wpbf.com)


LAWRENCEBURG, Ind. -- An Indiana man has filed a lawsuit claiming that police forcibly withdrew blood and urine from his body during a drunken driving arrest, WLWT-TV reported.

According to the suit, police arrested Jamie Lockard, 53, on suspicion of drunken driving in March.

A Breathalyzer test showed he was under the legal limit, but Officer Brian Miller doubted the findings.

Lockard and his attorney claim in the suit that police took him to Dearborn County Hospital and forced him to submit to a urine and blood test.

Police said they obtained a warrant, but Lockard's attorney said his client was shackled to a gurney and had a catheter inserted against his will.

"It has to be executed reasonably," said attorney Doug Garner. "No one would say this is reasonable behavior. It's reprehensible that anyone could think that this is appropriate."

The blood test showed that Lockard's blood-alcohol level did not exceed Indiana's legal limit, police said.

Garner said the police officer did not apologize, but instead charged Lockard with obstruction of justice.

"He took it too far. He thought he could do whatever to me," Lockard said.

The suit names the Lawrenceburg police department and Dearborn County Hospital, in addition to Miller and Dr. Ronald Cheek.

"I would hate for this to happen to someone else," Lockard said. "It was the most humiliating thing that has ever happened to me, ever.
http://www.wpbf.com/health/20703731/detail.html


The Week's Round Up There are more links but I figured this amount would have just the right amount of people saying I hate all cops and I am prejudiced and/or a horrible criminal. :)



Cop forces women to stop performing CPR on her Grandson. Boy dies.
http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=11044041
Sep 03, 2009 6:24 PM CDT

Police dog bites 13-year-old girl after getting away from its handler at middle school; girl hospitalized (tennessean.com)
http://www.tennessean.com/article/D4/20090904/NEWS01/90904006/UPDATED%20FROM%20THURSDAY%20%20Police%20canine%20b ites%20student%20%20K-9%20officer%20reassigned
September 4, 2009


Albany police chief must answer criminal complaint for misconduct and grand larceny after resigning over racial slur
http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=11043334
Sep 3, 2009 04:30 PM


California sheriff's deputy pleads guilty to assaulting his wife and threatening to cut her in pieces and disolve her body in acid
http://www.myvalleynews.com/story/40466/
http://www.myvalleynews.com/story/40466/


Man's facial bones and teeth broken after his is beaten and Tasered™ NINE TIMES; Vermont State police settle brutality suit for $135,000
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=11036585
Arlington, Vermont - September 2, 2009

A South Texas police chief is accused of stealing more than $20,000 in drug forfeiture funds to spend on himself and relatives.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6602427.html
Sept. 4, 2009, 6:32AM

Three Baltimore cops suspended for attempting to convince a rape victim not to file a report
http://investigativevoice.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1198:news-flash-three-city-police-officers-suspended-for-not-reporting-rape&catid=25:the-project&Itemid=44
Thursday, September 03, 2009.

"I think there should be a law saying police can take people to jail for being stupid," Montana cop resigns over his contemptuous remarks about citizens on Facebook (montanasnewsstation.com)
http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=11042842&nav=menu227_3
Sep 3, 2009 03:26 PM

Cop suspended 20 days for sex on duty, having his girlfriend give him steroids, and illegally releasing confidential records
http://www.toledoonthemove.com/news/story.aspx?id=346403
By Brian Schwartz
Friday, September 04, 2009 at 2:12 p.m.


Compliant man posing no threat is brutally beaten by Minneapolis cops
http://kaaltv.com/article/stories/S1121308.shtml?cat=10728
New York cop hired his handyman to kill his wife
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/nypd-officer-accused-of-hiring-hitman-to-kill-his-wife-1.1422419
September 4, 2009 By ANN GIVENS

Ohio cop sentenced to $150 fine and anger management for holding a knife to his girlfriend's neck and kicking her in the stomach
http://www.sanduskyregister.com/articles/2009/09/01/front/doc4a9d90e58123a790624108.txt
Wednesday, September 2, 2009 12:15 AM EDT

darwinslair
September 4th, 2009, 08:50 PM
<smile> they should publicly catheterize the officer. Invite witnesses. Then take his badge. This is just abuse of power.

Tom

silverseeds
September 4th, 2009, 08:55 PM
absolutely nuts, couple this with the poor couple in texas, darwinslair(tom) postd a few days ago, aand you truly wonder where we are headed.....

Alabamy
September 4th, 2009, 09:09 PM
How can people expect any restraint from officers when DUI is publicly portrayed as a crime against humanity and violators are treated as sub human? It reminds me of a politician who ignores complaints of prison rape for fear of being labeled soft on crime if they speak out.

FAADAN
September 4th, 2009, 09:33 PM
Is there some web site that collects all of these stories. Over what period of time did they happen?

Alabamy
September 4th, 2009, 09:37 PM
You could find the date range pretty easily by clicking on each story and reading the date. Heaven forbid!

silverseeds
September 4th, 2009, 09:44 PM
Dang it people things like this should tell us it is time for the sane of both parties to come together, and save ourselves from the extremes of eachparty, before its to late. You only have to vote away freedom one time.

Zephyrbird5a-6
September 4th, 2009, 10:11 PM
OMG!!!

I just read a couple and got nauseated!!

Cliff Timmons
September 4th, 2009, 10:45 PM
That was dumb.
He should have drawn blood instead.
A catheter? Sheesh!

PCKGRat
September 4th, 2009, 10:51 PM
How can people expect any restraint from officers when DUI is publicly portrayed as a crime against humanity and violators are treated as sub human? It reminds me of a politician who ignores complaints of prison rape for fear of being labeled soft on crime if they speak out.

I will agree that these police were acting out of line in these incidents.

Why shouldn't people who commit DUIs be treated as idiots? Maybe it is a question for another forum.

Still, for everytime a person has actually been stopped for a DUI (over the limit for reals -- not like that guy), they have potentially gotten away with it about 5 to 10 times. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't want myself, my friends, my family, my neighbor down the street, a homeless guy I saw walking around at some point, or anyone to be killed or maimed because some moron hasn't figured out that alcohol and cars don't mix.

Subhuman treatment: No.

Public ridicule for all these offenders, including the bad cops: Yes!!

silverseeds
September 4th, 2009, 10:59 PM
I will agree that these police were acting out of line in these incidents.

Why shouldn't people who commit DUIs be treated as idiots? Maybe it is a question for another forum.

Still, for everytime a person has actually been stopped for a DUI (over the limit for reals -- not like that guy), they have potentially gotten away with it about 5 to 10 times. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't want myself, my friends, my family, my neighbor down the street, a homeless guy I saw walking around at some point, or anyone to be killed or maimed because some moron hasn't figured out that alcohol and cars don't mix.

Subhuman treatment: No.

Public ridicule for all these offenders, including the bad cops: Yes!!


I agree I would not loose any sleep if they double the sentences, of drunk drivers. But police need to be held to a higher standard. Also this whole story was just plain excessive.

Maybe we could offer huge bonuses to officers who man up and point out the dirty cops?

Maternut
September 4th, 2009, 11:02 PM
That was dumb.
He should have drawn blood instead.
A catheter? Sheesh!

You blow the legal limit it should be end of story. Drawing blood is far to invasive.

Cliff Timmons
September 4th, 2009, 11:09 PM
You blow the legal limit it should be end of story. Drawing blood is far to invasive.

Not in Missouri.
It's called the implied consent law.
It's tied in with a driver's license.
An officer may request two tests.
Normally I would to the breath test and if it came out below, and I thought the person was impared, we took a trip to the hospital and drew blood to check for narcotics.
If they refused, they would lose their driving priviledges for one year.

darwinslair
September 4th, 2009, 11:13 PM
we have implied consent here as well, but if you blow clear, you are clear unless there are other obvious mitigating circumstances. Chaining a guy and forcing a tube up his penis into his bladder goes a bit beyond implied anything. He submitted to the test, was clear, and being one who has had it done, I wish a catheter on no one.

Tom

Cliff Timmons
September 4th, 2009, 11:20 PM
I agree tom.
That's what I meant by I thought the person was impared.
Not just a thought but be able to articulate why I thought that as well.
And I've never heard of a cop requesting a catheter. That's crazy.

darwinslair
September 4th, 2009, 11:46 PM
I agree tom.
That's what I meant by I thought the person was impared.
Not just a thought but be able to articulate why I thought that as well.
And I've never heard of a cop requesting a catheter. That's crazy.

That is why I said, do it to him, and strip him of his badge.

Maybe his direct supervisor as well.

Tom

Cliff Timmons
September 4th, 2009, 11:53 PM
That is why I said, do it to him, and strip him of his badge.

Maybe his direct supervisor as well.

Tom

As bold as this was, I wonder if this was normal for that department.
Now I have heard of this if someone was in a wreck and in the ER and the suspect was unconscious or otherwise unable to preform the other test, especially in the case where others were involved and injured and or killed.

But this didn’t sound like the case at all.
Legal, maybe. Pracitical and smart,.... not at all.

Alabamy
September 5th, 2009, 06:41 AM
I think dui is a dangerous crime but I'm not in favor of vilifying people to the extent that roadside blood tests and forced cath becomes the norm because a suspect is guilty until proven innocent 2 or 3 times.


edited to say:

I hope this cop, every time he's in court to testify on a ticket or a dui, gets the same questions asked by defense.

Have you ever made a mistake in a when puling someone over/dui case? Please explain the nature and extent of this mistake.

Roserock
September 5th, 2009, 07:02 AM
Forced... catheterization. Forced. If they did that to a woman they'd be hanged.

Alabamy
September 5th, 2009, 07:12 AM
Here is another one, this one happened last year. Do a Yahoo search of "forced catheterization" and you wil get a lot of local tv reports, then google it. These are happening all over the country but never seem to make it to national headlines.

In this case the man gets 15k and the police don't have to admit to doing anything wrong....

Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Ouch!! Forced catheterization after DUI arrest
Link

KELSO, Wash. -- When a man who was suspected of drunken driving in Longview refused to give blood and urine samples he was taken to a hospital.

His lawyer says he was held down kicking and screaming for a blood draw. And a tube was inserted into his bladder to withdraw the urine.

He sued Cowlitz County. A settlement was reached Friday in which he was paid $15,000, without authorities admitting they did anything wrong.

The 37-year-old man, Matthew Clifford Arthur, was on probation at the time of the arrest in November and was required to undergo screening for drugs and alcohol. When he refused, his lawyer says he should have been taken to the jail instead of the hospital.

axhandle
September 5th, 2009, 07:38 AM
I would be interested in the results of the urine drug screen.
Someone sensed impairment by whatever cause), the police officer and or Doc.

Catherization beats a suprapubic anyday.

Would like to see the outcome of the legal case.

Ax

Alabamy
September 5th, 2009, 07:52 AM
I would be interested in the results of the urine drug screen.
Someone sensed impairment by whatever cause), the police officer and or Doc.

Catherization beats a suprapubic anyday.

Would like to see the outcome of the legal case.

Ax

1) The results of the urine test were that the man was under the limit. I wrote this in the first sentence. It is also in the short article which I quoted for easy reading...

2) How do you know that "someone sensed impairment by whatever cause" ? How do you know that the department wasn't targeting a bar and puling over anyone that came out of the lot as a form of harassment?

3) Do you believe the scenario I described in #2 is out of line and rarely happens?

4) The outcome will be a modest settlement, 15 to 35k and the department admitting no wrong doing.

5) "Catherization beats a suprapubic anyday." I bet being skinned alive feels even worse but does that excuse a forced cath? The idea that something else is worse???

Cliff Timmons
September 5th, 2009, 08:08 AM
I wouldn't even have a problem looking at an officer's record on how many legal people have been brought in only to be released because they were under the limit vs. guilty people who have been arrested.

I always had it out for a drunken driver. I thrilled in arresting them. I was good at it. Very good. There is something about pulling dead folks out of accidents that does that to a person, or notifying a family that they just lost a family member to a drunk. But I also only remember one person out of 7 years that was not legally intoxicated. It was a woman who had been out drinking with her friends. She was all over the road and couldn’t stand up. I thought she was drunk. She thought she was drunk. Her friends thought she was drunk. But she wasn’t. She was a lightweight. <Grin> She registered like a .04 or something. I didn’t let her drive, but rather called her husband to come and get her.

But if you are going to detain someone or restrict their movement in anyway, you’d better make darn sure you are right. No one is perfect, but this is serious business.

GreenZone
September 5th, 2009, 08:10 AM
1) The results of the urine test were that the man was under the limit. I wrote this in the first sentence. It is also in the short article which I quoted for easy reading...

2) How do you know that "someone sensed impairment by whatever cause" ? How do you know that the department wasn't targeting a bar and puling over anyone that came out of the lot as a form of harassment?

3) Do you believe the scenario I described in #2 is out of line and rarely happens?

4) The outcome will be a modest settlement, 15 to 35k and the department admitting no wrong doing.

5) "Catherization beats a suprapubic anyday." I bet being skinned alive feels even worse but does that excuse a forced cath? The idea that something else is worse???

Does the phrase "unreasonable search" not mean anything anymore?

To me this seems more like a gesture than a legitimate law-enforcement procedure. The statement being made is "We can violate you if we want to."

Just my opinion.

Alabamy
September 5th, 2009, 08:15 AM
Unreasonable search is connected with privacy and privacy has gone out the window unfortunately. I think the old guy had a few beers and was pulled over coming out of a targeted bar. I think he raised a stink an committed the off the book crime labeled "contempt of cop" which is basically expressing your rights and is punished by the harshest justifiable punishment the cop can come up with. In this case having a tube forcibly inserted into the man's penis.

texman
September 5th, 2009, 10:26 AM
No matter how it is sugar coated forced catheterization cannot be justified. Anyone who thinks it has a place in lawful enforcement, maybe let us do it to your daughter, then tell me it is ok. It is power abuse and the officer should be fired along with his superiors who wrote such a policy. In no way do I defend any intoxicated driver in any way except to say certain rights are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution. I hope he sues and were I on the jury I would help make him a very wealthy man.

stempy
September 5th, 2009, 11:02 AM
No matter how it is sugar coated forced catheterization cannot be justified. Anyone who thinks it has a place in lawful enforcement, maybe let us do it to your daughter, then tell me it is ok. It is power abuse and the officer should be fired along with his superiors who wrote such a policy. In no way do I defend any intoxicated driver in any way except to say certain rights are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution. I hope he sues and were I on the jury I would help make him a very wealthy man.

Justified!! Drag the coward out kicking and screaming/crying tie him to a post in the town square and send a tube up his private parts. Call the media for all to witness including any testoserone overdosed cops that think it is a good idea.
Jon Thompson

fruits&nuts
September 5th, 2009, 11:14 AM
Does the phrase "unreasonable search" not mean anything anymore?

To me this seems more like a gesture than a legitimate law-enforcement procedure. The statement being made is "We can violate you if we want to."

Just my opinion.

The phrase "unreasonable search" does not mean anything anymore. The SCt has been slowly but surely expanding the power of the government over the last 70 years and taking away individual rights. Every year we lose another right.

axhandle
September 5th, 2009, 01:38 PM
1) The results of the urine test were that the man was under the limit. I wrote this in the first sentence. It is also in the short article which I quoted for easy reading...

2) How do you know that "someone sensed impairment by whatever cause" ? How do you know that the department wasn't targeting a bar and puling over anyone that came out of the lot as a form of harassment?

3) Do you believe the scenario I described in #2 is out of line and rarely happens?

4) The outcome will be a modest settlement, 15 to 35k and the department admitting no wrong doing.

5) "Catherization beats a suprapubic anyday." I bet being skinned alive feels even worse but does that excuse a forced cath? The idea that something else is worse???
1.What and how much? Under the limit--but Positive.
2.Doc's or policeman don't have senses?
3.No
4.See my post--"Would like to see the outcome."
5.I think the Doc may have ordered it--ask him. The statement is still true-whether it applys here or not.

I believe handcuffs were mentioned somewhere---Why?

axhandle
September 5th, 2009, 05:09 PM
Read the leading (1st sentence) of the Newspaper article then ----stop---what comes to mind. The Police personally did this.
I always believe news media they "lead" you into a clouded frenzy.

End of my comments .
Ax

jemarmy
September 5th, 2009, 07:42 PM
Wow! That makes me nauseous! I don't understand why blowing under the limit is not sufficient?

Osh
September 6th, 2009, 07:52 AM
That was dumb.
He should have drawn blood instead.
A catheter? Sheesh!

I see you justifiably prefer rape with a needle instead of a rubber tube. This implied **** with the driver's liscense is still just that...****. I have never agreed to anything like this, needle nor rubber rape, and don't intend to. Please don't anybody come at me with a needle, and tell me its legal. Again, its now "legal" in Texas, Utah, and a few other states, for a LEO to take blood at a traffic stop if he "thinks" a perp, and of course, we are all "perps", might be intoxicated...so some LEO with three days training and certification on "the needle" can decide to stick somebody....takes nurses six months to qualify to do the same thing...any nurses out there? And where's that needle been..rolling around on the squad car floor...has it been used b/4 (these are LEOs now and your health is not their responsiblity)...so try standing up for your rights, and out comes the needle, its just more threats, intimidation and harassment only if you get hit with a dirty needle, you may pay for it the rest of your life, however short that may be. ..Suppose its some sweet little ol' gal out there Cliffy...now its legal for a LEO to stick a needle in her arm, and maybe put a little something else in the syringe to inject her with to make her a bit more compliant? And of course, any drugs found inside her later will of course have already been there, which is why the LEO's pulled her over in the first place....any semen, bruises, likewise b/4 they 'saved' her...and its all legal now. uh uh...no way Jose'. ..See, it all sounds good...until the abusers start using it...

Osh
September 6th, 2009, 08:00 AM
Unreasonable search is connected with privacy and privacy has gone out the window unfortunately. I think the old guy had a few beers and was pulled over coming out of a targeted bar. I think he raised a stink an committed the off the book crime labeled "contempt of cop" which is basically expressing your rights and is punished by the harshest justifiable punishment the cop can come up with. In this case having a tube forcibly inserted into the man's penis.

Agreed. Plus the fact that hospitals are the germiest places on earth. Infections of all kinds come from catheterizing with non-sterile equipment. But you know, who cares. What's important is the LEO had something to flex his muscles over at the next morning's meeting at Dunkin...its ok to risk killing the guy or make him sick for the rest of his life, just as long as the LEO ego is propped up forever. I too would like to see of names published that voted for this "forced" catherization, or rape with the needle type legislation. I'm sure this type of "vote" is taken only by a show of hands.

gardener5
September 6th, 2009, 08:32 AM
I see you justifiably prefer rape with a needle instead of a rubber tube. This implied **** with the driver's liscense is still just that...****. I have never agreed to anything like this, needle nor rubber rape, and don't intend to. Please don't anybody come at me with a needle, and tell me its legal. Again, its now "legal" in Texas, Utah, and a few other states, for a LEO to take blood at a traffic stop if he "thinks" a perp, and of course, we are all "perps", might be intoxicated...so some LEO with three days training and certification on "the needle" can decide to stick somebody....takes nurses six months to qualify to do the same thing...any nurses out there? And where's that needle been..rolling around on the squad car floor...has it been used b/4 (these are LEOs now and your health is not their responsiblity)...so try standing up for your rights, and out comes the needle, its just more threats, intimidation and harassment only if you get hit with a dirty needle, you may pay for it the rest of your life, however short that may be. ..Suppose its some sweet little ol' gal out there Cliffy...now its legal for a LEO to stick a needle in her arm, and maybe put a little something else in the syringe to inject her with to make her a bit more compliant? And of course, any drugs found inside her later will of course have already been there, which is why the LEO's pulled her over in the first place....any semen, bruises, likewise b/4 they 'saved' her...and its all legal now. uh uh...no way Jose'. ..See, it all sounds good...until the abusers start using it...

Before ya just to huge conclusions maybe ya should have asked Cliff wether he mean having the blood drawn at the hospital or the traffic stop and I'm guessing Cliff mean at the hospital.

GreenZone
September 6th, 2009, 08:47 AM
Is there some medical reason why urine still in the bladder is going to give a more accurate (or more favorable) reading than urine when passed, or breath, or blood? If not then I fail to see why there isn't universal outrage about this practice.

redneckplanter
September 6th, 2009, 08:52 AM
I see you justifiably prefer rape with a needle instead of a rubber tube. This implied **** with the driver's liscense is still just that...****. I have never agreed to anything like this, needle nor rubber rape, and don't intend to. Please don't anybody come at me with a needle, and tell me its legal. Again, its now "legal" in Texas, Utah, and a few other states, for a LEO to take blood at a traffic stop if he "thinks" a perp, and of course, we are all "perps", might be intoxicated...so some LEO with three days training and certification on "the needle" can decide to stick somebody....takes nurses six months to qualify to do the same thing...any nurses out there? And where's that needle been..rolling around on the squad car floor...has it been used b/4 (these are LEOs now and your health is not their responsiblity)...so try standing up for your rights, and out comes the needle, its just more threats, intimidation and harassment only if you get hit with a dirty needle, you may pay for it the rest of your life, however short that may be. ..Suppose its some sweet little ol' gal out there Cliffy...now its legal for a LEO to stick a needle in her arm, and maybe put a little something else in the syringe to inject her with to make her a bit more compliant? And of course, any drugs found inside her later will of course have already been there, which is why the LEO's pulled her over in the first place....any semen, bruises, likewise b/4 they 'saved' her...and its all legal now. uh uh...no way Jose'. ..See, it all sounds good...until the abusers start using it...

i don't believe anybody condones rape.
weather symbolic or actual.are you saying that member condones that?sounds like it?
tell a family who has lost a loved one from a drunk that it's all ''****''

redneckplanter
September 6th, 2009, 08:54 AM
and the drugs?sedating a person?sexual assault?
you really truly believe that happens?

Osh
September 6th, 2009, 09:06 AM
You've got to be kidding.

redneckplanter
September 6th, 2009, 09:16 AM
I see you justifiably prefer rape with a needle instead of a rubber tube. This implied **** with the driver's liscense is still just that...****. I have never agreed to anything like this, needle nor rubber rape, and don't intend to. Please don't anybody come at me with a needle, and tell me its legal. Again, its now "legal" in Texas, Utah, and a few other states, for a LEO to take blood at a traffic stop if he "thinks" a perp, and of course, we are all "perps", might be intoxicated...so some LEO with three days training and certification on "the needle" can decide to stick somebody....takes nurses six months to qualify to do the same thing...any nurses out there? And where's that needle been..rolling around on the squad car floor...has it been used b/4 (these are LEOs now and your health is not their responsiblity)...so try standing up for your rights, and out comes the needle, its just more threats, intimidation and harassment only if you get hit with a dirty needle, you may pay for it the rest of your life, however short that may be. ..Suppose its some sweet little ol' gal out there Cliffy...now its legal for a LEO to stick a needle in her arm, and maybe put a little something else in the syringe to inject her with to make her a bit more compliant? And of course, any drugs found inside her later will of course have already been there, which is why the LEO's pulled her over in the first place....any semen, bruises, likewise b/4 they 'saved' her...and its all legal now. uh uh...no way Jose'. ..See, it all sounds good...until the abusers start using it...

kidding?
regarding what i percieve is a nasty attack on cliff?''prefer rape with a needle?"
did i miss something there?if so sorry?but it's right there bright as day in print????
or that you believe all cops are capable of what you are suggesting?
no veiled words osh?
say what you mean.
????????????

darwinslair
September 6th, 2009, 09:45 AM
I dont think Cliff thinks any of this is directed at him. And I dont think Cliff every did this to anyone.

Of course, I am not cliff either.

oh well

Tom

uprooted_kentuckian
September 6th, 2009, 09:48 AM
This is just par for the course from Osh.

redneckplanter
September 6th, 2009, 09:48 AM
post 32?
quoted cliff?seems to be a response to cliff to me?
maybe not....?

darwinslair
September 6th, 2009, 09:56 AM
I missed that one.

But if narcotics are suspected and you have already taken the person to a medical facility, I do not think that the needle would/should be out of the question. The issue here though appears to be that the person was obviously not impaired and the cop took it to a humiliating and painful conclusion for the driver.

Tom

redneckplanter
September 6th, 2009, 10:15 AM
your silence is confirmation osh?
its definately a hot topic tom...

darwinslair
September 6th, 2009, 10:20 AM
huh?

darwinslair
September 6th, 2009, 10:23 AM
I am just confused. Osh has his own points, and his point of view is one of complete distrust of authority. I dont have complete mis/distrust, but I have known far too many cops that I do not trust at all to say that cops are good. Some cops are great people, some cops are bad people, and many are one the infinite shades between the two.

I think this cop went a few too many shades to one side.

Tom

silverseeds
September 6th, 2009, 10:27 AM
I agree with what tom just said.

I would only add that one reason I think these things can go on, is a good cop cant turn on a bad cop easily. They have closeknit bounds and for good reason. I think we should find a way to get the good cops to rat out the bad cops. Maybe cash. Everyone likes money. If you know another oficer if abusing power, then we need a way to make other police want to turn them in. Im not sure there is a way, but we should try.

older than dirt
September 6th, 2009, 10:32 AM
Is there some web site that collects all of these stories. Over what period of time did they happen?

Its a big country . If you look for one kind of story you can find many.
If you want school shootings there are allways some around. If you want grandmothers having sex with animals i'm sure some can be found.

On the police over steping athority I think there has to be a way found to punish the officers & the people that hire the officers rather than law suits against the city/ state that they work for.
My taxes should not go up becouse someone I voted against hired someone I dont like hired a dumb <---> that did something wrong.

Cliff Timmons
September 6th, 2009, 11:12 AM
I don't really care whether or not that was directed toward me or not.
And yes Osh, you did consent to have blood urine or breath drawn by signing your driver's license.
Once again, driving is a privilege not a right.
Look at your state statutes and see if I’m not right.

Then after telling a man and wife that the one thing that is most dear to them in the world, the life of their child, has been taken away because someone had one too many jello shots and crossed the center line and killed that innocent person. You listen while momma screams for her baby and shouts at God asking Him why, why, why. Stand there while the father dies on the inside, never to return to his former self. Listen while he chokes out the words, “Where is my son now? Or “Can I see my boy one more time.” Or one time, cut an infant out of an overturned vehicle still hanging upside down in their car seat. Listen to the wailing or the broken hearted family as you pull the lifeless body of that youngster out of the car while they yell. “It’s going to be OK, isn’t it?” This little child that moments before was cooing and singing and playing with it’s parents.

You endure that one time, and you won’t be so rough and tough anymore about defending a drunk’s supposed rights. I know for myself, I am no longer as rough and tough because of times like that. While my tolerance for a drunk as hit an all time low, my fear and anxiety grows over the years for those I love.

axhandle
September 6th, 2009, 11:48 AM
The leading sentence of the newspaper article is deliberate and appapently achieved it's twisted intent----GET THE POLICE. Go back and read it again.---Juicy Huh?

I have more to say --and I back Cliff. and not blindly!

Ax

darwinslair
September 6th, 2009, 12:04 PM
Then after telling a man and wife that the one thing that is most dear to them in the world, the life of their child, has been taken away because someone had one too many jello shots and crossed the center line and killed that innocent person.

But was that the case with this person? One person's ill actions towards another do not justify the mistreatment of a third person.

Tom

axhandle
September 6th, 2009, 12:15 PM
Is there some medical reason why urine still in the bladder is going to give a more accurate (or more favorable) reading than urine when passed, or breath, or blood? If not then I fail to see why there isn't universal outrage about this practice.

Specimens of choice are :

Blood-alcohol/drugs
Urine-Drugs of abuse.

I presume Doc, at the hospital ordered both as he also suspected Impairment.
Under what is known as Chain of Custody

It takes both---urine alcohol is for all intents and purpose, is not a definitive test for alcohol, but for DAU.
Breathalyzer only detect alcohol, with a wider margin of error.

Hope this answers the question.

darwinslair
September 6th, 2009, 12:18 PM
So....was he impaired? My guess is no since there is people upset about all of this.

But as I just said, just a guess.

As far as I could see, all he was charged with was obstruction of justice, and unless testing clean is obstructing the officer from getting the conviction he wants, I am eager to see what exactly was the obstruction, or was it just used as the charge of convienience it so often seems to be.

Tom

darwinslair
September 6th, 2009, 12:19 PM
Breathalyzer only detect alcohol, with a wider margin of error.


Not much of a margin of error. They are pretty darn accurate, unless you just took a spritz of aerosolized breath freshener, in which case it might show that you are supposed to be dead.

Tom

axhandle
September 6th, 2009, 12:20 PM
Specimens of choice are :

Blood-alcohol/drugs
Urine-Drugs of abuse.

I presume Doc, at the hospital ordered both as he also suspected Impairment.
Under what is known as Chain of Custody

It takes both---urine alcohol is for all intents and purpose, is not a definitive test for alcohol, but for DAU.
Breathalyzer only detect alcohol, with a wider margin of error.

Hope this answers the question.

I am apalled that Wiki, or any other source,tells how to BEAT a drug test---Look it up--
May as well run it in the newspapers--daily.

axhandle
September 6th, 2009, 12:22 PM
Not much of a margin of error. They are pretty darn accurate, unless you just took a spritz of aerosolized breath freshener, in which case it might show that you are supposed to be dead.

Tom

Than a Chain of Custody, definitive Laboratory.?

Dream on Dar.

Ax

darwinslair
September 6th, 2009, 12:36 PM
<laughing> I have no idea what you are talking about.

Tom

GreenZone
September 6th, 2009, 12:40 PM
Not really. Is blood not sufficient? (asked generally, not specifically directed toward you.) Also, under implied consent, don't I have the right to refuse a test and lose my license for the prescribed period of time? And finally, does implied consent mean I've consented to having a CATHETER applied to me? Specimens of choice are :

Blood-alcohol/drugs
Urine-Drugs of abuse.

I presume Doc, at the hospital ordered both as he also suspected Impairment.
Under what is known as Chain of Custody

It takes both---urine alcohol is for all intents and purpose, is not a definitive test for alcohol, but for DAU.
Breathalyzer only detect alcohol, with a wider margin of error.

Hope this answers the question.

uprooted_kentuckian
September 6th, 2009, 12:48 PM
Thats what I was wondering GZ. In Georgia, I can simply refuse. I can't imagine it isn't the same everywhere.

axhandle
September 6th, 2009, 01:05 PM
<laughing> I have no idea what you are talking about.

Tom

It's easy enough to google/ giggle it .

Ax

axhandle
September 6th, 2009, 01:09 PM
Not really. Is blood not sufficient? (asked generally, not specifically directed toward you.) Also, under implied consent, don't I have the right to refuse a test and lose my license for the prescribed period of time? And finally, does implied consent mean I've consented to having a CATHETER applied to me?

Will give input on samples later(Birthday Party), GZ, I can't answer the rest.

And no offense taken.

What did you think of the first sentence in the newspaper article?

Ax

GreenZone
September 6th, 2009, 01:24 PM
Will give input on samples later(Birthday Party), GZ, I can't answer the rest.

And no offense taken.

What did you think of the first sentence in the newspaper article?

Ax

I didn't think much of it, really. I'd have to say, using a catheter without the subject's consent, certainly sounds forcible to me.

Osh
September 6th, 2009, 01:47 PM
...did anybody see any of the other links in the original posting? The second one is particularly interesting:

Cop forces women to stop performing CPR on her Grandson. Boy dies.
http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=11044041

uprooted_kentuckian
September 6th, 2009, 01:54 PM
That doesn't make much sense. I'd like to hear the other side of the story.

darwinslair
September 6th, 2009, 01:59 PM
I looked a little into it and it seemed odd, as though the officer was confused. Help was there, move back, let the pros take over.....oops, I better wait for the paramedics.

Tom

Cliff Timmons
September 6th, 2009, 08:50 PM
...did anybody see any of the other links in the original posting? The second one is particularly interesting:

Cop forces women to stop performing CPR on her Grandson. Boy dies.
http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=11044041

I think that clearifies Osh's intent as if it wasn't before.

uprooted_kentuckian
September 6th, 2009, 08:55 PM
I agree.

Cliff Timmons
September 6th, 2009, 09:02 PM
And again, I think the catheter was too intrusive in this case, unless there were facts we don't know about here.

uprooted_kentuckian
September 6th, 2009, 09:15 PM
Without a court order, it should be beyond the scope of a police officer to begin with. Who on earth would consent to that?

Alabamy
September 6th, 2009, 09:35 PM
it should be beyond the scope of a police officer to begin with

If you don't have anything to hide then why do you care? You must be one of those pot smoking liberal hippies talking about your rights. You sound like the type who hate cops because they stop drug addicts from putting babies in microwaves!

darwinslair
September 6th, 2009, 09:38 PM
Sorry, been catheterized myself. It was a horrible painfull experience. It would be the equivalent of beating someones arm with a hammer until it bled to get a blood sample instead of just waiting for the guy to pee.
Tom

Alabamy
September 6th, 2009, 09:53 PM
I really should have added tags to my last post I guess! :)

uprooted_kentuckian
September 6th, 2009, 09:59 PM
Without your last post, I wouldn't have caught the sarcasm either, though I certainly hoped you were being sarcastic. Me, a pot smoking liberal hippie - lol, I'd shoot myself to put me out of my own misery.