POLICE STATE 2011: Guy gets DUI for walking his bicycle while intoxicated

[WeThePeopleVStheNWO]

I'm RACIST for criticizing Obama.

TERRORIST because I'm not with Bush.

ANTISEMITIC for not supporting Rothschild Zionism.

TEABAGGER for supporting the Constitution.

TRUTH-ER for asking unanswered questions.

TRAITOR for whistle-blowing on my corrupt Government.

CONSPIRACY THEORIST for presenting documented facts.

TROLL for uploading news, videos, quotes and U.S.Atrocities.

ANTI-AMERICAN for supporting Constitutionalists like Dr. Ron Paul.

RON PAUL 2012!

[paulrprichard]

"Go along with the program" ?

It does not work that way.

America, look away from the "bread and circuses" and WAKE UP.

[paulrprichard]

Lawsuit damn it.

[paulrprichard]

Absolute disgrace.

[Zorack10]

I bet the dude in this video has a history of being drunk and probably was arrested more than once and he's pissed cause he got arrested again.

[wtfhej]

I havn't seen the whole video, haven't read the comments. I don't live in the US, but I am here right now, and I must admit that stuff like this is scary. Hopefully this will not be an ongoing trend.

[RMCrowley]

Don't you feel safer knowing that they got this guy off the streets? That is freedom right there.

[matlarson10]

there are clauses in the bill of rights and the constitution stating in mitigating circumstances where if evidence if needed for proof of a crime, blood may be drawn with out a judges approve if time is of the essence. If you do not think that time is a factor in DUI's you guys are not very bright. If you read the fine print on the form you sign when you get a drivers license, you consent before hand to searches like this for DUI and DWI.

[matlarson10]

do i believe it is right for a man who is simply walking his bicycle to get a DUI. NO. but if you are in a vehicle on state roads you have already given implied consent to searchs like this.

[Metalloveica]

@matlarson10 Nonsense! Implied consent?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[watcher8o]

@matlarson10 "there are clauses in the bill of rights and the constitution stating in mitigating circumstances..."

Please be so kind as to cite the lines within the Constitution that state this.

You can't, because it's not in there. You may be correct about the fine print on the contract entered into when one receives a drivers license, but please don't try to say that the Constitution gives the police any power such as drawing blood. That is an outright falsehood.

[matlarson10]

@watcher8o you know there are state constitutions correct? look up the LeLame Act.

[watcher8o]

@matlarson10 You said "bill of rights and the constitution"... that implies The US Constitution, and the Bill of Right as a part of The US Constitution. State constitutions may say such stupid things as collecting blood will be permitted, but a bit off topic. My state does not have any such provision, also off topic.

Back on topic, you are defending state tyranny and the forceful taking of blood. You okay with that?

[matlarson10]

@watcher8o I am very ok with it in certain circumstances where evidence to charge someone with a crime will be destroyed i/e/ BAC levels if not done within a time frame. But the cops should have had a DR do it or a nurse, not by themselves holding the man down its very dangerous. But for any other circumstances NO. I am very much a believer in our civil liberties and I defend them Daily. But when it comes to others lives at stake with drunk driving, they have to be stopped and charged.

[watcher8o]

@matlarson10 Basically, you are saying it's okay for a state employee to hold somebody down and steal their extremely personal information, against their will, based on said employees suspicion. And you see nothing wrong with that at all...

Americans have always had the right to refuse cooperation. A judge was the only way for such evidence to be collected as a protection of civil liberties.

This sort of thing opens up a Pandora's box of dangerous police state tactics.

[eoyourmom]

@matlarson10 The correct course of action is to call a judge and have them author the warrant to make it legal. THEN have a Dr draw the blood, using restraints only if the suspect is uncooperative. Because at that point you have a legal order to take that evidence. What happened is happening increasingly around the country.

[Lepiratepoulpe]

No Way! Man...S has HTF and we are still too stunned to notice.

[bkr360]

We need to storm the Court there and have all the Pigs arrested that inflicted that violence on him and hold them down and draw there blood till they Die...

[sm00vee42o]

'going along' to get along just don't cut it anymore

[Ajindo76]

I believe it . I worked with a guy who was arrested for DUI in a wheelchair. He could barely use his right arm and they still cuffed him

[jaegerdogg]

I love the USSA, freedom is overrated.

[cchessmaster]

Sue them for assault and false arrest. This is just wrong.

[MrBuckwilliam]

a dui for walking? something has to be done. we lose respect more and more for the police officers... these officers should be locked up or shot with balls of their own shit and pissed on... fuckers

[TheDeucePhoenix]

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.