Some people are frightened of a little prick. Just look at Hitler.Originally Posted by vidcc
As far as urinating is concerned, they might have Prost(r)ate trouble.
Poster
BT Rep: +1
Some people are frightened of a little prick. Just look at Hitler.
As far as urinating is concerned, they might have Prost(r)ate trouble.
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
Diabetics take samples of their own blood, mate.
That is an entirely different thing.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
In addition, as I understand it, the presumption of innocence is integral to the legal system in question.Some people are frightened of a little prick. Just look at Hitler.
As far as urinating is concerned, they might have Prost(r)ate trouble.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
Forum Star
BT Rep: +2
Well blood is blood, no?Diabetics take samples of their own blood, mate.
That is an entirely different thing.
effendi
I see what you mean, a droplet of blood should be as representative of the whole bloodstream as a syringe-full. I don't know the specifics but it certainly seems to stand diabetics in good stead. However, I think it's the taking of the blood that JP was referring to. The legal issues of a policeman taking a tiy specimin of blood and then using rudimentary apparatus to discern the alcohol level is bound to be fraught with difficulties. The practicalities would also cause concern. For example when a needle is used, the blood doesn't come into contact with air plus there is less chance of it being tampered with.Well blood is blood, no?
Also, there would be ethical points to consider. One can do what they like to their own body. For example you could pick your nose right now, if you wanted - but if someone else tried to insert a digit into your nasal passage, you'd be less than pleased.
Taking blood is an invasive procedure and as such should be carried out by a trained professional, imo.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Forum Star
BT Rep: +2
Drunk driving is an invasive procedure when the car hits you.
effendi
The purpose of the blood test is to discern whether the driver was actually drunk or not.
Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. You can't just go poking needles in people willy nilly, things must be done properly.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Forum Star
BT Rep: +2
I guess you haven't seen just how drunk some people are on the roads.The purpose of the blood test is to discern whether the driver was actually drunk or not.
Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. You can't just go poking needles in people willy nilly, things must be done properly.
effendi
Now why would you say something like that.I guess you haven't seen just how drunk some people are on the roads.
I'm saying that every possible precaution should be taken to ensure a man does not get wrongly accused of a crime and you're saying to cut corners.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
there is no god
My point about the blood or urine test was that they have already given a positive test. If they are going to challenge the accuracy of the breath test device then they should (my opinion) opt for a different test to prove their innocence at the time of the offence and not at a later date once the "evidence" has left the body. The option is there.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks