Ted Rall by Ted Rall

Ted Rall

Comments (24) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. jackson49

    jackson49 said, almost 4 years ago

    Ted, U see this the past week? It’s about our brave drones.

    White House wins fight to keep drone killings of Americans secret
    jan 3. 2013

  2. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Well, medical personnel have to do the blood draw. I’m surprised at the rulling because for so long “drinkin’, drivin’, good ol’ boy” judges, and prosecutors, have long been sensitive about being “too harsh” on drunk drivers, even after they’ve killed someone. Now about that “field sobriety” that still stands in most jurisdictions as “evidence”, maybe judges are as hung up on the “forensics” and “science” as the publlic watching CSI who have no clue about how things REALLY work?

  3. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, almost 4 years ago

    Try being a diabetic. You get to draw your own blood between 3-7 times a day.
    Of course, I see your point, Ted. An American citizen should not be forced to self-incriminate for a traffic violation. Dashboard cameras should be more than sufficient evidence in a traffic stop, capturing both the driving and subsequent reactions of the suspect as evidence. I imagine the first person to claim they contracted AIDS or some other blood-borne disease from an improperly administered draw will become a millionaire. Not to mention the risk to the officers themselves, should the suspect have a virus.
    Plus, an unnecessary blood draw from a hemophiliac can result in injury. And people on chemotherapy, who may have a reaction to their meds and exhibit intoxicated behavior, may be fatally wounded by a simple draw not administered by their doctor.

  4. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, almost 4 years ago

    All good points. Here’s an easy fix: if the driver refuses a breath-a-lyzer, he is automatically guilty of DUI. Want to prove you’re not? Blow.

    Too simple?

  5. Donald Williams

    Donald Williams said, almost 4 years ago

    @I Play One On TV

    Here’s an easy fix: if the driver refuses a breath-a-lyzer, he is automatically guilty of DUI.
    -————————————
    Usually your posts are relevant and cogent.
    .
    This one falls far short of your usual standard.
    .
    I have just one question:
    At what point did you surrender the legal requisite of “innocent until proved guilty”?

  6. Stipple

    Stipple said, almost 4 years ago

    @Donald Williams

    I live in Alaska, we have quite the drinking problem here.
    .
    Refusing a breathalizer test does not make you drunk.
    .
    However, the law on the books puts refusing a request froman officer to submit to an alcohol check on a public highway is a felony.
    Refusal to blow in a breathalizer is a felony in Alaska. Thought I would say it twice.
    .
    This avoids the self incrimination, breathalizer refusal is a crime all unto itself.
    .
    The police report in the local paper lists refusals right along with drunk driving. Surprise surprise, the penalties are the same also.

  7. cjr53

    cjr53 said, almost 4 years ago

    @Donald Williams

    How about: refuse the blood or breath test, your license to drive is automatically suspended.


    Driving is a privilege, not a right.

  8. Dr Solar

    Dr Solar said, almost 4 years ago

    Im from the government and Im here to help

  9. babka

    babka GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    yes

  10. babka

    babka GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    you really can’t LOL unless you yourself are a person of color

  11. Grafite D. Sketch

    Grafite D. Sketch said, almost 4 years ago

    Obama is too conservative for Ted Rall.

  12. Donald Williams

    Donald Williams said, almost 4 years ago

    A good friend of my wife lost her sister-in-law after a Black Friday traffic accident where the other driver was drunk. The SIL died 10 days later from her injuries.
    -————————————-
    First, let me express my regret for the loss of life. That is indeed tragic.
    .
    I look at the question as one of Constitutional rights – one of which is protection from unreasonable search & seizure and another from self-incrimination.
    .
    Keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court will make the ultimate determination. Trust your governmental authorities to make the right decision!
    Smiley
    .
    Next, I would ask you to consider whether such laws would have prevented the death – or would they merely have provided a harsher punishment for the accused? The woman still would be dead. Is this about vengeance? Or what?
    .
    I’m not being facetious – I try to understand other perspectives.
    Smiley

  13. Donald Williams

    Donald Williams said, almost 4 years ago

    Your rights end where they infringe upon mine.
    -—————————-
    I refer you to my previous comment to The Trusted Mechanic
    Smiley

  14. Donald Williams

    Donald Williams said, almost 4 years ago

    It is called reasonable suspicion, if the cop has enough doubt to pull you over then they have the right and obligation to investigate further.
    -———————————————
    If law enforcement officers were all lily-white and above reproach, I might (emphasis – might) accept this reasoning.
    .
    In my younger days, I was a law enforcement officer in Texas. Some of the officers carried a “throw-down” to place beside a deceased = evidence that the death was a case of self-defense.
    .
    I see no reason to believe that a policeman’s “obligation to investigate” will not result in similar abuse.
    .
    The right thing to do is to protect the rights of all citizens under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    .
    Let’s await the decision of the esteemed U.S. Supreme Court.
    Smiley</a

  15. Donald Williams

    Donald Williams said, almost 4 years ago

    No, I want to make it easier for the innocent to avoid being tied down, degraded, and violated.
    -———————————-

  16. Load the rest of the comments (9).