Printable View
The option is there but the onus cannot be left soley on the accused. Some people may not know of the option.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If only a breath test was administered then altho' fault can be found with the accused for not insisting on a blood test, the prosecutor must be mainly at fault if the breath test's reliability cannot be proven.
I think the burden of proof was mentioned earlier so I'm basically recapping here.
well then, you should be in defense of the blood test :PQuote:
Originally Posted by manker
breath-a-lyzers can be fooled by mouthwash, cough syrup, etc.
I've seen it first hand
so say you take a swig of Nyquil, then make a run to the store,
you forget to fully stop at an intersection, get pulled over,
hit with a breath-a-lyzer.....BAM! DUI
the taking of blood or urine in addition to breath...
would be taking further steps to insure an accurate reading
but we dont wanna be poking ppl with needles
or askin em to demean themselves by pissing in front of an officer into a cup
meh.
and I didnt see VB say corners should be cut :blink:
Try reading the text, Brian.Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
I said that a blood test should be administered by a professional rather than buy a non-medical person. VB said otherwise - this is what I meant by cutting corners.
Given that I posted about not cutting corners, every possible precaution should be taken to ensure a man does not get wrongly accused of a crime and the burden of proof being on the accuser, it obviously follows that I think people should have blood tests in order to determine culpability. The bit when I said we should not be poking needles in people willy nilly didn't mean that I'm morally against syringes (for fuck's sake) it meant that I think someone with some medical training should be the one to extract the blood.
You bleeding heart liberals are all the same :dry:
I agree that the person taking blood (if that is the choice) should be fully trained to do so. If the expense of using a doctor or tax collector to get the sample is prohibitive then I don't see a problem with training some law enforcement officers so that there is always someone at "headquarters" on duty to perform the procedure once the accused arrives.
The accused should (my opinion) be given a choice. Accept the breath test as final or give a blood or urine sample unless they can produce a valid medical reason not to (I can't think of any).
If they wish to dispute the breath test after refusing the secondary tests then they should be charged with refusing to give a test which should be the same from a legal standpoint as a positive test.
The accused should be informed of all his rights and should be allowed to have a lawyer or independent witness present before the test is carried out. If a lawyer cannot be provided in the time-scale needed before the alcohol leaves the body then the accused or the law enforcement officers should have the right to have the test done at the nearest available healthcare facility.
It is the fault of the system having failures that lawyers are possibly going to get guilty people off. Some lawyers specialise in DUI cases, I wonder how many have lost loved ones due to someone driving impaired due to the effects of alcohol or drugs. The system needs tightening so that the guilty have no way to avoid justice..... protect the innocent, punish the guilty.
@ fkdup74.
I believe you can be prosecuted for driving under the influence of things like nyquil. The charge is something like "driving while impaired". Usually there will be a warning on the label about causing drowsiness and not to operate machinery.
Seems like a sensible approach to me. I am not sure whether it would be feasible / ethical to train Police Officers to carry out such tests, but if it is your ideas seem sensible and (as importantly) workable.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc