Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Betcha he's never going to drive with any sort of alcohol in him ever again.
Why would he do that. He wasn't drunk and the blood and urine samples proved that and so did the breathalizer. The police didn't have to force catheterization on him - they could have waited until natured called. Shackeling a man to a gurney is a bit much.
Good news everyone, forced catheterizations for all!!
This is above and beyond, the guy was within the legal limits and thus his legal rights. The officer and the judge should be sentenced to a rashambo competition with that guy going first while wearing wingtips....
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
__________________ “The fact is that censorship always defeats it's own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.”
Why would he do that. He wasn't drunk and the blood and urine samples proved that and so did the breathalizer. The police didn't have to force catheterization on him - they could have waited until natured called. Shackeling a man to a gurney is a bit much.
Of course it is. The article implies that 0 < his BAL < legal limit. So he had some alcohol in his system, just not enough to be charged. Point being, after this, even though he was innocent of breaking that law, he's not likely to ever drive with booze in his system again. The legality of what they did is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Of course it is. The article implies that 0 < his BAL < legal limit. So he had some alcohol in his system, just not enough to be charged. Point being, after this, even though he was innocent of breaking that law, he's not likely to ever drive with booze in his system again. The legality of what they did is an entirely different kettle of fish.
True. Almost like someone should start a thread about it, citing a news story emphasizing that very issue.
__________________
The great CP is in dire need of prunes!
"That's because the productive part of society is adverse to giving up all their wealth so you libs can conduct your social experiments. Experience tells us your a bunch of snake oil salesman...Sucks to be you." ~Calgaryborn 12/06/09 keeping it really stupid!
Of course it is. The article implies that 0 < his BAL < legal limit. So he had some alcohol in his system, just not enough to be charged. Point being, after this, even though he was innocent of breaking that law, he's not likely to ever drive with booze in his system again. The legality of what they did is an entirely different kettle of fish.
So is this like a silver lining?
"Sure, he didn't break the law and is innocent, but this guarantees he'll be innocent next time too. All it took was a tube forced into his penis".
I suppose if you ever get a speeding ticket for going 50 in a 50 zone you'll say "well that sucks, but I'm definitely going to follow the rules from now on".
Is this another case of the guy behaving like an ass? What happened that the police charged him with obstruction of justice.
I'm willing to bet he wasn't all that down with the whole forced catheterization part of the equation, which sounds like a fairly reasonable response to me.
Forced Catheterization Used In DUI Case
