Yes it is. And being rude to other members is as well. I'm with Woodrow; I hate rude behavior in a man...
Watching this one closely...
Yes it is. And being rude to other members is as well. I'm with Woodrow; I hate rude behavior in a man...
Watching this one closely...
A government agent with powers of arrest violating the law and the Constitution has (or should have) consequences. I believe actual damages would be small, but punitive damages would be large. I'm not saying she should get rich for 20 minutes of resistance, but the agency should pay for their misdeeds.
As for Pokingfun, I don't even think he realizes that he has people from every spectrum on this forum disagreeing with him. Right, left, libertarian and all points in between have tried to explain it to him with no success. People I vehemently disagree with 98% of the time are telling him the same things I am. Pretty much the entire country is calling for the cops to be fired in this case and even their DA wants a criminal case. It's not my place to call him a troll, so I'll just say I believe he's incapable of seeing the error of his thoughts on the matter. Why really doesn't matter, it's a free country and he has a right to be wrong.
Cheers!
Only problem with your whole theory is that many others have been saying the exact same thing I have and they're not getting any logical discussion in return.
IF you're speaking on the dept's behalf, depending on the outcome they may not respond. If charges are brought upon the officer then a policy won't respond to a criminal act.
for me, I'm being pretty good.
Of course there should be consequences, never said there shouldn't be. I'm just not sure I'm ready to agree that there should be a HUGE financial payday for her, especially if taxpayers have to foot the bill. If personal liability is put into the picture then let 'em fork it over.
Most cities are self insured.
Implied Consent to Alcohol Testing
Any person who holds a CDL is considered to have consented to such testing as is required by any State or jurisdiction in the enforcement of being under the influence of a controlled substance or using alcohol, be under the influence of alcohol, or have any measured alcohol concentration or detected presence of alcohol, while on duty, or operating, or in physical control of a commercial motor vehicle. Consent is implied by driving a commercial motor vehicle.
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/commercial-drivers-license/states
Any person who holds a CDL is considered to have consented to such testing as is required by any State or jurisdiction in the enforcement of being under the influence of a controlled substance or using alcohol, be under the influence of alcohol, or have any measured alcohol concentration or detected presence of alcohol, while on duty, or operating, or in physical control of a commercial motor vehicle. Consent is implied by driving a commercial motor vehicle.
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/commercial-drivers-license/states
More proof that you're behind, remember my post about internet lawyering? Well we've come full circle as predicted lol. The 2016 Supreme court ruling that has been plastered all over the internet because of this case, ruled SPECIFICALLY, that blood testing doesn't apply to implied consent. FMSCA rule pertains to breath and saliva only.
It's pretty pathetic that you're trying to research this to justify the cop's actions.
Similar threads
