Illegal arrest?

LexusLover defending this Officers actions....big suprise.

So LL , you think the officer was justified?



. Originally Posted by WTF

So you post some bullshit and then ask if I agree to it?

I wouldn't want to embarrass you by asking where I "defended" the "officers" (sic) actions, but since you can't write I can understand why your reading comprehension is defective.

So LL , you think the officer was justified?



. Originally Posted by WTF

You do not have the balls to answer this f o you LL.

Busy looking for a driving/walking permit on IT campus?


.

You do not have the balls to answer this f o you LL. Originally Posted by WTF

It takes "balls" to answer your stupid questions?

Why did you start this thread? "Politics"?

Or do you think you'll get a discount on a session? Oh, wait!

You don't have sex. I forgot.

IMHO, and I do not care about how SCOTUS ruled on this issue, taking blood from a person violates the 5th amendment to the constitution. Attacking me and penetrating my skin is assault and battery. Also falls under the 4th amendment as unreasonable search and seizure.

Argue about it all you want but that is my opinion.

IMHO, and I do not care about how SCOTUS ruled on this issue, taking blood from a person violates the 5th amendment to the constitution. Attacking me and penetrating my skin is assault and battery. Also falls under the 4th amendment as unreasonable search and seizure.

Argue about it all you want but that is my opinion. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Yea...I'm in agreement. Especially without a judges order.

It takes "balls" to answer your stupid questions?

Why did you start this thread? "Politics"?

Or do you think you'll get a discount on a session? Oh, wait!

You don't have sex. I forgot. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Like I said, you do not have the balls to answer.

Once again...

Do you think the officer acted within the law?


You are very good at distorting. How is this politics? How is this trying to get a discount? How do you know if I have sex or not? It is not about politics, I'm not trying to get a discount and you've new nothing about my sex life to have forgotten.

One again...

Do you think the officer did nothing wrong? It appears you are the only one if so, who thinks that way.


.

IMHO, and I do not care about how SCOTUS ruled on this issue, taking blood from a person violates the 5th amendment to the constitution. Attacking me and penetrating my skin is assault and battery. Also falls under the 4th amendment as unreasonable search and seizure.

Argue about it all you want but that is my opinion. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

It's not much of an "argument" when you word it as you do.

Simply refusing to voluntarily give information and/or evidence beyond the mandatory "name, rank, and serial number" and/or identification to show one is entitled to be engaged in the activities in question, e.g. driver's license or CHL, is an appropriate response to law enforcement inquiry.

But my guess is that 90% of the knuckleheads on here, and I can name them because they customarily show their asses, won't "refuse," because they think they are "smarter" than the cops! Just look at them post their worthless opinions!

It's not much of an "argument" when you word it as you do.

Simply refusing to voluntarily give information and/or evidence beyond the mandatory "name, rank, and serial number" and/or identification to show one is entitled to be engaged in the activities in question, e.g. driver's license or CHL, is an appropriate response to law enforcement inquiry.

But my guess is that 90% of the knuckleheads on here, and I can name them because they customarily show their asses, won't "refuse," because they think they are "smarter" than the cops! Just look at them post their worthless opinions! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Like I said, you do not have the balls to answer.

Once again...

Do you think the officer acted within the law?


You are very good at distorting. How is this politics? How is this trying to get a discount? How do you know if I have sex or not? It is not about politics, I'm not trying to get a discount and you've new nothing about my sex life to have forgotten.

One again...

Do you think the officer did nothing wrong? It appears you are the only one if so, who thinks that way.


. Originally Posted by WTF

Do you think the officer was justified in his actions?

IMHO, and I do not care about how SCOTUS ruled on this issue, taking blood from a person violates the 5th amendment to the constitution. Attacking me and penetrating my skin is assault and battery. Also falls under the 4th amendment as unreasonable search and seizure.

Argue about it all you want but that is my opinion. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

I fully agree. Additionally i find those "DNA Databases" cops have, where they take your DNA "Just cause you got arrested, but most times never charged or even convicted) and store it for decades, unconstitutional. I FULLY AGREE with keeping DNA tracking info on CONVICTED felons, but not just someone who merely got arrested but never charged with anything.

I FULLY AGREE with keeping DNA tracking info on CONVICTED felons, but not just someone who merely got arrested but never charged with anything. Originally Posted by garhkal

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment and the issues you have raised about it, but ...

...a "compromise" may be that the sample and/or results be ERASED/ELIMINATED/DESTROYED from any evidence related to the case for which the person was arrested and any data base holding the results of any tests from the samples REGARDLESS of whether the case is "expunged" from the person's record after the case is dismissed or a nonprosecution decision made by a grand jury and/or a prosecutor/DA.

That's for two reasons: One the charge for which the person was arrested may not be the proper charge and a correct charge filed after the arrest (or additional charge(s)) AND the DNA results COULD exonerate the person from some other charges (in other words he would be entitled to the benefit of the DNA results [I say that because of recent cases in which DNA results have been used to prove the innocence of persons already convicted.] To be specific those DNA results passing through the existing DATA BASE could get a hit on DNA collected at the scene of another crime for which someone was already convicted and/or someone was charged awaiting trial.

Do you think the officer was justified in his actions? Originally Posted by WTF

This is the question LexusLover will just not answer.

Probably because he thinks the officer was justified.


.

You can't blame the pig, afterall Utah and the Moron (Mormon) church are in their own little world. That nurse is lucky she didn't get beheaded.

You can't blame the pig, afterall Utah and the Moron (Mormon) church are in their own little world. That nurse is lucky she didn't get beheaded. Originally Posted by Stockinglover

Has all of the video/audio footage regarding the arrest, transportation, and blood draw been released to be seen? I've just seen the portion where the officer is going after the "nurse"!

You can't blame the pig, afterall Utah and the Moron (Mormon) church are in their own little world. That nurse is lucky she didn't get beheaded. Originally Posted by Stockinglover

Lol....a tad extreme but funny.

Has all of the video/audio footage regarding the arrest, transportation, and blood draw been released to be seen? I've just seen the portion where the officer is going after the "nurse"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

No there has not been a trial where you then can play Monday morning quarterback.

What has been asked is wtf you think about what we know know. If further evidence comes out that this nurse was a serial cop killer and about to murder this cop, one can then change their opinion.

You just do not have the balls to say a cop was wrong.



.