Posted on 03/07/2008 7:04:04 PM PST by elkfersupper
Actually, you’ve got it just bass-ackwards... which is not totally surprising... many who call themselves “conservative” do that. Yes, I took my share of them over my 22+ years of service, but I never did put the blame for it where it DOESN’T belong. I put the blame for these humiliating and unnecessary personal invasions right square on the Federal government and their utterly unconstitutional laws banning the possession and ingestion of things over which they have ZERO legitimate authority. As you may be aware, the laws outlawing the possession and use of certain substances came about, along with NFA ‘34, not long after Prohibition I was repealed... obviously in an effort to keep all the booze cops on the payroll and further expand FedGov power and reach over the lives of “the little people.” Had no other intent, as the medical testimony at the time (what of it was allowed before being ignored) clearly said that drug usage was NOT a serious medical issue and could be kept under whatever control was deemed MEDICALLY necessary BY the practitioners, NOT the government. In other words, it was not and should not become a legal or criminal issue. But power hungry politicians and bureaucraps (NOT a misspelling) ignored them, in the same manner that legitimate science NOW which does not back up the myth of man-made global warming is ignored... and for the same reasons: There would be no place for more government control in a society which was rational and reasoned in its dealings with these “issues.”
SCREW YOU JACK!! IT’S DRUGGIES LIKE YOU WHO FORCE THE REST OF US TO SUBMIT TO MANDATORY DRUG TESTING!
Anyone who complains is automatically a druggie?
Interesting "logic" you have there...
It doesn’t work that way. When you are on probation and you are stopped for suspicion of driving under the influence, refusing to cooperate with the arresting officer is not viewed too kindly. Yes, his probation can be (and probably was revoked) and, once he went back to prison, he has no right to refuse anything.
As a felon, he gave up many things when he decided he could not live within the laws of society. A judge will likely decide whether or not the police went too far but, IMO, he wasn’t in a position to refuse. The fact that he did underscores the fact that this guy is not a serial jaywalker, he commits serious crimes and belongs in prison.
As a felon, he gave up many things when he decided he could not live within the laws of society. A judge will likely decide whether or not the police went too far but, IMO, he wasn’t in a position to refuse. The fact that he did underscores the fact that this guy is not a serial jaywalker, he commits serious crimes and belongs in prison.
So by your logic, he should be forced to undergo any medical procedure, whether he refuses or not? Maybe giving up a kidney? A lung? His heart? The last time I checked, being a convict in a US jail (not the case in China and other countries) doesn't allow the government to perform medical procedures on you, other that (possibly life-saving procedures). Just where do you draw the line?
Cathederization is an invasive medical procedure that I wouldn't want to endure without general anesthesia. Even with it, I've been quite sore for a day or two afterwards.
I've never ceased to be amazed that there are so called "conservatives" all over, including some who post here, who say that when you're in jail, what ever is done to you is deserved. I've seen posts here that claim that when an inmate is homosexually raped, "he deserved it, since he was a convict." Somehow, I find it hard to believe that when a judge or jury passed sentence on the convict, a part of that sentence was to be anally raped. Or do you just look upon that as "a bonus?" Your statements are more of the same.
Mark
Now you're just being absurd.
Prayers up for you.
Thank you.
Agree with you (but paragraphs are our friends). :-)
Nowdays, many on FR are "conservatives" in the Latin America sense, not in the United States of America sense.
Actually I do complain every time we get locked down for a urinalysis. FYI, I’m not a lawyer but I belong to a JAG unit. You should hear the lawyers sounding off:
“Why is it always one hundred percent get tested?”
“Who are they trying to catch?”
“No one has ever tested positive in this unit since 1991.”
“Why are we always having to prove our innocence?”
In other words, like most things in the military, people complain but then follow orders. Maybe last post was too broad of a brush.
But it’s true that commanders cannot target individuals for urinalysis based upon suspicion. Finding drugs in somebody’s wall locker during a H&W inspection, that’s different.
Who are "they", why is that, and why do you think that?
“As a felon,...”
How do you know that this probationer (not parolee) is a felon? Do you know the difference between probation and parole?
Yeah, add me if I’m not on the list already. This article and some of the responses to it sicken me.
He got probation either AFTER he had served some portion of a jail (or prison) sentence, or as a deferred sentence. People with misdemeanors are typically assessed a fine or light community service - NOT probation or jail. Those convicted of a felony crime are typically assessed either jail or probation, based upon a variety of conditions, including how much the judge's hemorrhoids are bugging him/her on any given day!
Since YOU are the one trying to obfuscate the issue by introducing parole vs. probation, perhaps YOU should define the difference.
“He got probation either AFTER he had served some portion of a jail (or prison) sentence, or as a deferred sentence.”
How do you know? Do you have additional information that can further enlighten us?
“People with misdemeanors are typically assessed a fine or light community service - NOT probation or jail.”
Wrong. Almost every misdemeanor carries probation time, that is essentually how they ensure payment of the fines and performance of community service. The only misdemeanors that I can recall that do not carry probation time are for minor traffic violations.
The bottom line is that the information provided in this article is not sufficient to reach the conclusions that you have presented and in addition, the conclusions you present are lacking knowledge regarding probation and the CJ system.
welcome aboard!
We agree on this point.
They would be hospital personnel, and the why would be if he required medical treatment. If the authorities just forced this on him in order to get evidence against him, then I agree, it should not have been done.
The cops can’t take someone to jail if they are not deemed to be medically fit for incarceration. The person has to be certified well enough to go to jail by a doctor if he is injured, sick, or so drunk/drugged he might die. If the cops didn’t do this, they would be sued if somebody croaked in jail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.