I understand the cops but the nurses are bound by ethics and could be sued for this behavior.

*promote
*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by pumkinandstorm.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, June 28th, 2013 9:53pm PDT - promote requested by pumkinandstorm.

*controversy *law

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Law) - requested by MrFisk.

Goddamn vampires.

It seems kind of ridiculous that you can refuse the test for a 1 year suspension. The blood tests are of course extreme, but I dont like the idea of drunk drivers dodging prosecution either.

Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

I'd take the suspension on principle, and drive without a license for a year on the same principle.

Here's the real: More fatal accidents occur in the U.S. now due primarily to distracted drivers and speeding. I would appreciate a scale of punishment befitting the crime committed based on the frequency and resulting loss-i.e., a distracted motorist causing an accident gets a harder hand-slap for using a cell phone than he/she would for drinking 3 shots of bourbon. and goin' to the store for a six-pack after.

A sobriety test should be quick and painless:
Smell breath-Been drinking
initiate breathalyzer-legally drunk

License suspended for a year, and if caught driving under suspension, complete loss of driving privileges for 2 years.
Caught under suspension after 2 years suspension, 5 years suspension and 180 days of supervised, community service on a dirty state highway during the middle of the summer, rounding-up garbage and carcass.

If a drunk under suspension kills or injures anyone while driving, 5 years on a chain gang whose job it is to walk the entire length of State highway 8-hours-a-day for the duration of their sentences, picking up trash and planting marijuana and indigenous flowering perennials.

Make a spectacle of a repeated drunk offender if there is no rehabilitating him. More so with text-drivers, that shits worse than crack and invariably more dangerous than drunks, who are primarily on the roadways when most peeps are ASLEEEEEP!

I think you have the right, especially if you're only suspected of guilt to keep your blood in your body. If they find your blood somewhere they can test it, but your blood is yours and I'm not ok with the cops taking it away.

Especially in conditions such as those, he could've gotten an infection and lost a limb.

And thanks to the Supreme Court, the DNA evidence can now be held indefinitely.

You lot are so precious about the strangest things. Punishment for killing or injuring someone whilst drunk means NOTHING to the killed person and almost as little to the injured person. The increase in distracted driver syndrome is due to the increase in distractions not a decrease in drink driving. Safety issues like this are prime examples of where heavy handedness and public display of such is most effective. Fuck these a-holes. Rights such as freedom etc are not inalienable. In Australia if you refuse you are charged as if you were over the legal limit. No ifs, ands or buts. Driving 2 tonnes of metal around at 60-100 kph is not an inherent right of man but a responsibility to be taken seriously.

I don't disagree that deaths by drunk driving are a real danger, but DUI laws tend to only do two things: 1. Revenue creation for the city/state. 2. Punish people preemptively before they create a victim.

Whatever happened to no victim, no crime?

I got pulled over once at 3am, suspected of drunk driving.

I took the breathalyzer, passed, and was on my way.

The horror!

I've had friends who have sustained serious injuries from drunk drivers.

Drunk drivers are incredible assholes.

Whenever I get my blood drawn for anything, it's so exciting it makes me yawn.

I don't have any kind of problem with this. In fact, I'm surprised it's even legal to refuse a breathalyzer.

It's really simple. Driving is part of a social contract. Everyone pays taxes and gets to use the roads. Part of the terms and conditions of using the roads are that you are a competent driver. This means a) you have a licence to show that you passed a test proving your proficiency and b) your ability is not impaired. As part of the deal, you accept that the cops get to check that your blood alcohol level. Don't like it? Don't drive.

Or hell, go all libertarian and get a private company to build a private road network. Let me know how that works out.

Blood is evidence of a crime and preserving that evidence trumps personal liberties.

Risking someones life isn't a "Personal Liberty."

Also EVERYONE is mad about this, this isn't some psychotic thing that only Conservatives or Libertarians are mad at, everyone is pissed. So guess what, if we don't like something the cops can't fucking do it.

No one got killed you idiot, innocent until proven guilty.

Nope fuck that, I'm not willing to give cops this ability. If cops can do this, than I can do it to them because Cops drink on the job all the fucking time.

Well if that was your experience than it must be relevant to this situation, nay ALL situations. Giving cops the ability to inject you with a dirty aids needle...sounds GREAT.

You're all Wrong! I'm taking a stand! Cops are running this country like their own private gulag and I'm sick of it.

What are you going to do about it?

Cops bleed too.

Someone else is a dickhead, so we should all be dickheads.

Awesome logic.

@Yogi So no need to security of any kind? Justice is purely post hoc? No need for metal detectors at airports, no need for security at the White House except to catch who ever kills your president, no need to think ahead about anything.... just react.

Medical professionals routinely take blood samples, sometimes done with the help of law enforcement or prison guards.

Yes, the easiest way to get out of being suspected of drunk driving is to take the breathalyzer.


Focusing your life on a long-term career will bring you more happiness than trying to overthrow governments.

Earn enough to make a down-payment on a house. Gain enough value that you appreciate law enforcement protecting it.

Why isn't refusing a breathalyzer the same as exercising your right to remain silent? How is this medical procedure different from any other, and how can any medical procedure be forced upon someone like this? Oh, wait... Georgia...

NM

Leave it to a FOX affiliate to spin it in the way they did. And interviews with cops... just piss me off. So predictable, so many cliché and standard PR responses. "Our safefty", "safety of the suspect", "it's ok because a JUDGE approves it". Cops either need to start refusing to do shit like this en masse and lose their jobs, or risk the inevitable Purge.

@Fletch

If you invoke your right to remain silent but are almost certainly guilty of a crime, that doesn't mean you don't have to pay for your crime.

You can still be charged in court, have your house and computer searched, etc. In this case, the assumption is that having blood analyzed is in the same category as having your house analyzed.

We can make a data-driven decision and say that yes, virtually everyone who went through this blood draw was guilty of the crime.