WATCH: Woman screams as JMPD officers restrain her for blood alcohol test - but City of Joburg insists its 'legal'

Trilkop

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2015
Messages
525
havent been in gov. service for a long time but Im actually sure that in a case where this much non-cooperation is exhibited there are a whole flurry of charges that you can lay that will negate the drinking anyway. Obstruction of Justice is a hectic example. why not just charge her with that and throw her in the holding cells.
Back in the day that would neither have been an option. No one would refuse. The necessary violence too would have been used in restraining the suspect and doing the blood
 

WorldWarII

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
322
All being said. I have sadly been in the position where I have had to restrain an absolutely looney woman before myself to stop her destorying the restaurant her and her fiance were eating(and fighting) at. She went absolutely mental and you can't use much force , where she was using ALL possible force. Its a very VERY difficult situation. I can tell you now that even with all the people who saw, even with the bruises and scratch and bite marks on her boyfriend and I, and even with her obviouse out of control behaviour. If ide put one mark on her Ide have been in the next headline.
 

Craig

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
12,659
The legal limit is not near the level of intoxicated. It is at the level where they can make easy money and assault people.

I'm not advocating driving when you are too drunk to do so. But honestly the current legal limit is nothing but a money making limit. Same goes for speed.

Biggest killer out there is not wearing seat-belts and even the cops down't buckle up so I have no sympathy for the ones involved in this when they get axed from the force for misconduct.
I will have to disagree with you there. South Africans in general already can't really drive properly on a good day and in the morning when they are "rested", never mind in the afternoon or in bad weather. Now add alcohol to that mix and it will definitely not improve things.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,314
Nobody is denying the need to have taken a blood sample. The CPA is also not a law unto itself. It forms parts of a set of acts trying to balance both justice and general rights. That's why old Howard, as you call him, also made a tweet ...
who said anything about that?

did you bother to read what i was replying to?


The legal limit is not near the level of intoxicated. It is at the level where they can make easy money and assault people.

I'm not advocating driving when you are too drunk to do so. But honestly the current legal limit is nothing but a money making limit. Same goes for speed.

Biggest killer out there is not wearing seat-belts and even the cops down't buckle up so I have no sympathy for the ones involved in this when they get axed from the force for misconduct.
Disagree everyone think i can handle my beer - until its too late - Dont be that guy.
on the other hand most cops are none the better I've had a Sober friend pulled off and harassed because they smelt liquor - she was the designated driver - for her drunk friends:X3:
Also I don't think i have ever seen the stats for prosecutions of DUI's just arrests.
 

Sollie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
3,834
who said anything about that?

did you bother to read what i was replying to?
Yes, That is why my reply is in context. You can't do a blood test by not following the clinically required procedures in a contaminated environment not set up for the purpose. Even if that was was paralatic drunk not resisting, you can't thouw her on a table in a charge office, draw blood without gloves etc. The least of the procedures would at least be a set of gloves for both's protection. You also mentioned JPSA.

I'm curious to see if the HPCSA weighs in or will play ostrich.
 

bumbledore

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
483
Yes, That is why my reply is in context. You can't do a blood test by not following the clinically required procedures in a contaminated environment not set up for the purpose. Even if that was was paralatic drunk not resisting, you can't thouw her on a table in a charge office, draw blood without gloves etc. The least of the procedures would at least be a set of gloves for both's protection. You also mentioned JPSA.

I'm curious to see if the HPCSA weighs in or will play ostrich.
Respectfully, what do you expect the HPCSA to do or say about this?
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,314
Yes, That is why my reply is in context. You can't do a blood test by not following the clinically required procedures in a contaminated environment not set up for the purpose. Even if that was was paralatic drunk not resisting, you can't thouw her on a table in a charge office, draw blood without gloves etc. The least of the procedures would at least be a set of gloves for both's protection. You also mentioned JPSA.

I'm curious to see if the HPCSA weighs in or will play ostrich.
again you did not read what was discussed.

The lack of gloves we all agree that's not on , again no one is disagreeing on that

The crux of the matter is a blood sample can be taken anywhere , the kit itself is meant for that purpose it is sterile and meant to keep the sample from being contaminated (not using gloves or wiping the needle with alcohol will contaminate it no one is disagreeing on that) , and again the parts you clearly ignore is the claim by Laurel and Hardy over there who insisted it's in the CPA when it clearly is not which i'm still waiting for them to prove , which they cant because it is not i there ,*again which i have said the justice project have confirmed . The rules are who can do it and how, not where.
As i have said, they have and will do this on the side of the road, a charge office of a police station and hospitals etc, will it be better done at a hospital or doctors surgery sure , but its not required (then again if you have been to some state hospitals lately you probably prefer it at the police station)

As for the HPCSA this has always been an issue for doctors, they unfortunately have to comply again i posted this link earlier
 
Last edited:

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
17,455
Yes, That is why my reply is in context. You can't do a blood test by not following the clinically required procedures in a contaminated environment not set up for the purpose. Even if that was was paralatic drunk not resisting, you can't thouw her on a table in a charge office, draw blood without gloves etc. The least of the procedures would at least be a set of gloves for both's protection. You also mentioned JPSA.

I'm curious to see if the HPCSA weighs in or will play ostrich.
Why them and not SANC?
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,248
No - of course, you wouldn't. You see racism toward you around every turn. That attitude sort of taints your view on absolutely every topic worth debating IMO
Yet racism is all around us. Go figure.

You don't believe she may have been drunk?. Why not just submit to the breathalyser test and be on her way? How did it escalate to the point where she had to be restrained? If there's reasonable suspicion, they test.
Ask the police who flaunted procedure. You also don't have the option to admit to a breathalyser as it's not admissible in a court but even if there was why should her only options be to admit to a crime she may not have committed or submit to a cocked up medical procedure? Lay the blame where it should be, police not doing their jobs properly.

The statement you two idiots are making is not any where in in the CPA, it only states who should do it Medical professionals etc) and it is very clearly stipulated not once does it state where it must be done.
It can be done on the side of the road or a police station

BTW this isn't my opinion its confirmed by the justice project - feel free to call old Howard
I see only one idiot here. As I keep repeating the CPA isn't something you can read sections in isolation. The whole act together with rights and other acts will tell you what procedures are supposed to be followed.

Nobody said it can't be done on the side of the road or police station in a suitably equipped facility. An eating room isn't it, mkay.

Also seeing the person drawing blood I doubt she's a registered medical professional.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,314
I see only one idiot here. As I keep repeating the CPA isn't something you can read sections in isolation. The whole act together with rights and other acts will tell you what procedures are supposed to be followed.
My point you clearly cannot comprehend is the CPA does not state a where at all.
The only idiot is the one who cant find proof of his claim , the act is pretty easy to read ,you better quit law you suck at reading.
It clear states who can do it , nice little paragraphs i posted , there really is nothing about this where , i mean if i take separate words from different parts i can make almost any sentence , but that not make it part of the CPA.

Nobody said it can't be done on the side of the road or police station in a suitably equipped facility. An eating room isn't it, mkay.
the only equipment necessary is the Blood Alcohol Collection Kit , any room will suffice , as long as the person drawing the blood is qualified and follows procedure correctly.
And i say one more time go ask the JPSA they said it can be taken anywhere.

Any way not like anything gets done , never ever do we get conviction stats for DUI's
 

John Tempus

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
2,075
The statement you two idiots are making is not any where in in the CPA, it only states who should do it Medical professionals etc) and it is very clearly stipulated not once does it state where it must be done.
It can be done on the side of the road or a police station

BTW this isn't my opinion its confirmed by the justice project - feel free to call old Howard






From the police's statements she did take a breathalyzer and it was positive for alcohol - hence they needed to take the blood sample.
No one gives 2shts about the CPA. The way this procedure without any clean working area to draw blood have been executed will get destroyed in court.

Do you actually think the CPA overrides constitutional rights ?

Lay off that meth pipe. If those were non registered nurse or even a registered nurse performing blood draw in that environment this girl (even if shes guilty/drunk) will get a landslide victory even in our cr@p court system just based on constitutional rights but you can keep hanging onto whatever you are trying to prove by saying what they did and the environment they did in it was perfectly acceptable.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,248
My point you clearly cannot comprehend is the CPA does not state a where at all.
The only idiot is the one who cant find proof of his claim , the act is pretty easy to read ,you better quit law you suck at reading.
It clear states who can do it , nice little paragraphs i posted , there really is nothing about this where , i mean if i take separate words from different parts i can make almost any sentence , but that not make it part of the CPA.


the only equipment necessary is the Blood Alcohol Collection Kit , any room will suffice , as long as the person drawing the blood is qualified and follows procedure correctly.
And i say one more time go ask the JPSA they said it can be taken anywhere.

Any way not like anything gets done , never ever do we get conviction stats for DUI's
The point you are clearly unable to comprehend is that it needs to be in a suitably equipped facility. So yeah, it can be anywhere as long as it's a suitably equipped facility. Do I need to shout it a third time so you can comprehend that?

This here is why our police is in such a state when even supposedly intelligent people can't comprehend how things should be done. You don't even need the CPA. All a lawyer has to do is show how contamination is possible and that's it. Your supposedly sterile kit becomes nothing in a contaminated room with people eating, drinking, coughing and spitting.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,314
No one gives 2shts about the CPA. The way this procedure without any clean working area to draw blood have been executed will get destroyed in court.
I never said they followed any protocol , just pointed out something
Do you actually think the CPA overrides constitutional rights ?
did i say it did?
like i said just saying what is in the act and whats not
Lay off that meth pipe. If those were non registered nurse or even a registered nurse performing blood draw in that environment this girl (even if shes guilty/drunk) will get a landslide victory even in our cr@p court system just based on constitutional rights but you can keep hanging onto whatever you are trying to prove by saying what they did and the environment they did in it was perfectly acceptable.
take your own advice lay off the drugs , go read what i said about the whole thing.
I never claimed what they did was right , especially the lack of gloves. Just pointed out the where is not mentioned in the CPA.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,248
I never said they followed any protocol , just pointed out something


did i say it did?
like i said just saying what is in the act and whats not

take your own advice lay off the drugs , go read what i said about the whole thing.
I never claimed what they did was right , especially the lack of gloves. Just pointed out the where is not mentioned in the CPA.
So you know they didn't follow protocol. Sweet. Let's move on then.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,314
The point you are clearly unable to comprehend is that it needs to be in a suitably equipped facility. So yeah, it can be anywhere as long as it's a suitably equipped facility. Do I need to shout it a third time so you can comprehend that?
Really suitably equipped with what a light bulb?
You just missing my point of the where for the 100th time is not mentioned, it doesn't even state anywhere in the CPA the words suitably equipped facility.
TBH that actually comes from the GW 7/54 form - so just pointing out you really dont know whats in the CPA.
Can you comprehend that?



So you know they didn't follow protocol. Sweet. Let's move on then.
The `Nurse' not wearing gloves yes, can't tell you about the safety of the needle as that claim is not seen anywhere in the video
 

Sollie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
3,834
Really suitably equipped with what a light bulb?
You just missing my point of the where for the 100th time is not mentioned, it doesn't even state anywhere in the CPA the words suitably equipped facility.
TBH that actually comes from the GW 7/54 form - so just pointing out you really dont know whats in the CPA.
Can you comprehend that?

The `Nurse' not wearing gloves yes, can't tell you about the safety of the needle as that claim is not seen anywhere in the video
Ah great. The CPA does not say you're not allowed to use a 10ft butcher knife for the blood letting. So it's allowed. Got for it ...

Apparently common sense is an oxymoron. I give up, I tried.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

access

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
8,436
Ah great. The CPA does not say you're not allowed to use a 10ft butcher knife for the blood letting. So it's allowed. Got for it ...

Apparently common sense is an oxymoron. I give up, I tried.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
at some stage medical law takes over where police law ends, like when the patient falls under the qualified medical professionals care when they need to take blood. people seem to forget that.

that pdf link i posted a few pages earlier gives pretty clear boundaries and instructions to these situations, with laws and previous case precedents.
 
Top