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

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,248
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?
You keep missing the point that it's not about the 'where' but the 'what' which implies on where the 'where' can be. Of course you won't find the words "suitably equipped" spelled out for pea brains. Some things are just taken for granted to be understood from their implication. Can you comprehend that? Seems you really don't know what the purpose of the CPA is.

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
If you think that's the only issue it just shows how little you know:
Touching dirty blinds and then the evidence.
A room full of people without access control.
Dirty table that contaminates the evidence collection.
People eating in what should be a clean room.
No privacy.
Male officers handling a female suspect.
...

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)_/¯
The CPA is actually a 24MB pdf with more than 200 pages. How he expects single answers on a limited forum when it should be read in its entirety for what is implied and cross referenced just boggles the mind.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,248
Drawing blood is invasive and needs the subjects approval.

Well, at least in a real country - not a f.....ing **** hole.
I don't have a problem with the blood drawing if it's according to procedure. I also believe a properly trained person could have calmed her down if procedure was followed rather than acting like a barbarian.

Better however would be a proper breathalyser in case the person refuses or allow a signing of the results being accurate. Or if the person disputes the results allow them to contest it with a voluntary blood test.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,314
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)_/¯
You keep missing the point that it's not about the 'where' but the 'what' which implies on where the 'where' can be. Of course you won't find the words "suitably equipped" spelled out for pea brains. Some things are just taken for granted to be understood from their implication. Can you comprehend that? Seems you really don't know what the purpose of the CPA is.


/Snip
You 2 have clearly neither read not understood the act and are are clearly missing my point.
 

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
2,792
You 2 have clearly neither read not understood the act and are are clearly missing my point.
I think what the two participants you are referring to in this discussion are trying to get you to acknowledge that the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be interpreted in isolation.

1. There are accepted guidelines and principles regarding the collection and processing of evidence as well as other inalienable rights that, when disregarded (or not followed as part of standard procedure), can and will affect the effectiveness or even admissibility of such evidence when it comes to presenting it in court. The argument of where and how a blood sample can be obtained should follow common sense as well as guidelines and accepted practices. The environment dictates the scrutiny to the validity of the sample. Not adhering to such negates the entire point of collecting the evidence in the first place.

2. The lack of any form of deescalation of the drama which unfolded in a public setting by the police shows a serious lack of training and is indeed excessive and plain to see in the video. It is a criminal offence to refuse a blood sample being drawn when suspected of DUI and refusing is a criminal act thus the police ideally should've charged her with obstruction and allowed the court to determine the outcome based on the obstruction and other behavioural observation and initial breathalyser evidence.
 

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
35,639
^ :thumbsup: very well put.

Those unhappy are not querying what was needed to be done, but where and how it was done..
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,248
You 2 have clearly neither read not understood the act and are are clearly missing my point.
You are the one that continually miss the point as well as the purpose of the act and how it applies. The main purpose of the act is how suspects and criminals should be treated and how their rights should be respected. Under the act all applicable regulations and procedures should be diligently followed by law enforcement even where the act itself does not spell it out. You seem to misunderstand this "under" and how everything falls under the act.

But since you are so obsessed with how it should be stipulated to the letter in the act please report on where the act says police are allowed to use force to obtain a sample. I see lots of opinions on the matter but nothing in the actual act(s). Under section 65(9) of the National Road Traffic Act "no person shall refuse that a specimen of blood, or a specimen of breath, be taken of him or her". Doing so would be an offence but police forcibly taking such a sample would be assault. Further if AARTO applies then it's only classified as an infringement and not even an offence.

If however her rights were violated as we can clearly see they were and she was fearing for her safety or health she can legally refuse. That's why police should not force it as a person may for instance be a haemophiliac. If the only concern is the evidence handling though you should still comply and the court will decide and throw it out afterwards.
 

Sollie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
3,834
You are the one that continually miss the point as well as the purpose of the act and how it applies. The main purpose of the act is how suspects and criminals should be treated and how their rights should be respected. Under the act all applicable regulations and procedures should be diligently followed by law enforcement even where the act itself does not spell it out. You seem to misunderstand this "under" and how everything falls under the act.

But since you are so obsessed with how it should be stipulated to the letter in the act please report on where the act says police are allowed to use force to obtain a sample. I see lots of opinions on the matter but nothing in the actual act(s). Under section 65(9) of the National Road Traffic Act "no person shall refuse that a specimen of blood, or a specimen of breath, be taken of him or her". Doing so would be an offence but police forcibly taking such a sample would be assault. Further if AARTO applies then it's only classified as an infringement and not even an offence.

If however her rights were violated as we can clearly see they were and she was fearing for her safety or health she can legally refuse. That's why police should not force it as a person may for instance be a haemophiliac. If the only concern is the evidence handling though you should still comply and the court will decide and throw it out afterwards.
Problem is people who do not understand the justice system. At least we tried, "maar niemand is so doof soos hy wat nie wil hoor nie".

Just a fun fact. I deal with certain aspects of the CPA etc and evidence gathering. While the armchair commentators believe it simple and everybody else is stupid, criminals get rich and lawyers share in the spoils of ignorance, while we foot the bills.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,314
You are the one that continually miss the point as well as the purpose of the act and how it applies. The main purpose of the act is how suspects and criminals should be treated and how their rights should be respected. Under the act all applicable regulations and procedures should be diligently followed by law enforcement even where the act itself does not spell it out. You seem to misunderstand this "under" and how everything falls under the act.

But since you are so obsessed with how it should be stipulated to the letter in the act please report on where the act says police are allowed to use force to obtain a sample. I see lots of opinions on the matter but nothing in the actual act(s). Under section 65(9) of the National Road Traffic Act "no person shall refuse that a specimen of blood, or a specimen of breath, be taken of him or her". Doing so would be an offence but police forcibly taking such a sample would be assault. Further if AARTO applies then it's only classified as an infringement and not even an offence.

If however her rights were violated as we can clearly see they were and she was fearing for her safety or health she can legally refuse. That's why police should not force it as a person may for instance be a haemophiliac. If the only concern is the evidence handling though you should still comply and the court will decide and throw it out afterwards.
Problem is people who do not understand the justice system. At least we tried, "maar niemand is so doof soos hy wat nie wil hoor nie".

Just a fun fact. I deal with certain aspects of the CPA etc and evidence gathering. While the armchair commentators believe it simple and everybody else is stupid, criminals get rich and lawyers share in the spoils of ignorance, while we foot the bills.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You both GO on and on and on about things i never even said.
- all i said was prove to me that the CPA states that the blood test cannot be done on the side of the road or in the police station.


Remember I'm talking about the where and not the nurse or the needle or any other legislation besides the CPA.


The Justice Project agrees with me -So are they wrong? If so feel free to tell them, and if you can please post their reply.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,248
You both GO on and on and on about things i never even said.
- all i said was prove to me that the CPA states that the blood test cannot be done on the side of the road or in the police station.


Remember I'm talking about the where and not the nurse or the needle or any other legislation besides the CPA.


The Justice Project agrees with me -So are they wrong? If so feel free to tell them, and if you can please post their reply.
You claimed they are allowed to use force. I can't find any such reference. You just can't admit you're talking crap. I said according to the CPA you can't do it, because the CPA requires all applicable procedures to be followed whether they are implicit or explicit. But of course you know more than all the legal eagles.

The JPSA isn't wrong, it's just your inability to understand what they're saying in the limited space and how it fits into the broader context of the law. If they were to give a full detailed response like you want it would be the size of the CPA which takes us back to square one. You still seem unable to understand that the 'how' implies the 'where' so while you can do it by the side of a roadblock in a suitably equipped facility you can't do it in a car on the back seat. But I expect you'll still be obtuse about this.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,314
You claimed they are allowed to use force. I can't find any such reference. You just can't admit you're talking crap. I said according to the CPA you can't do it, because the CPA requires all applicable procedures to be followed whether they are implicit or explicit. But of course you know more than all the legal eagles.
If you read my first post was just me trying to put together a sequence of events into perspective not to mention when i said they allowed to do I was literally saying exactly what in the title of this thread , it is in the article linked as said by Michael Sun , I am not him.




The JPSA isn't wrong, it's just your inability to understand what they're saying in the limited space and how it fits into the broader context of the law. If they were to give a full detailed response like you want it would be the size of the CPA which takes us back to square one. You still seem unable to understand that the 'how' implies the 'where' so while you can do it by the side of a roadblock in a suitably equipped facility you can't do it in a car on the back seat. But I expect you'll still be obtuse about this.

So they not wrong, I literally said the same thing , and im wrong.
I never claimed not to understand the broader aspects of the regulations , it's a simple black and white question.
They were literally asked side of the road (not in a caravan or anything) So there was nothing to misunderstand.
you claimed it its then went on about broader aspects and more BS.

The only one who who is being obtuse is you.
I said go ask them, why are you afraid to do it?
Because you know for a fact that you are wrong. If you ever read articles from them you know its not long, so not sure what you on about it wil be too long.

So unless you willing to do this please stop talking crap its not in the CPA (and again i'm not talking about any other regulations),

fin
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,248
If you read my first post was just me trying to put together a sequence of events into perspective not to mention when i said they allowed to do I was literally saying exactly what in the title of this thread , it is in the article linked as said by Michael Sun , I am not him.







So they not wrong, I literally said the same thing , and im wrong.
I never claimed not to understand the broader aspects of the regulations , it's a simple black and white question.
They were literally asked side of the road (not in a caravan or anything) So there was nothing to misunderstand.
you claimed it its then went on about broader aspects and more BS.

The only one who who is being obtuse is you.
I said go ask them, why are you afraid to do it?
Because you know for a fact that you are wrong. If you ever read articles from them you know its not long, so not sure what you on about it wil be too long.

So unless you willing to do this please stop talking crap its not in the CPA (and again i'm not talking about any other regulations),

fin
blah blah blah. You claimed police are allowed to manhandle subjects. You still claim it can be done anywhere by the side of the road or in a dirty police office. You're the one not understanding that 'anywhere' refers to location and not place. And if they gave you the article you want explaining common sense it would be long, not that it's long as it is now. But yeah, I'm wrong. :rolleyes:
 

Jabulani22

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
808
Drawing blood , being a sensitive subject to the point that you may not do it under any normal circumstances , whether drunk out of your mind or not should not be done without absolute proof of a sterile needle and an actual unbiased medical professional, if someone objects then holding them down is not the answer.
If the penalty for circumventing hygiene and safety was so severe then nobody would ever be put in this position , administer a sobriety test and then again every few hours without being body invasive .
This could be filmed and put before a few magistrates/judges to use past experience on the decision , this would stop costly legal battles with the state over hiv/stds/etc while we battle costly legal clashes over looting of the state.
If we want to be first world constitution then we have to be first world applications.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,314
blah blah blah. You claimed police are allowed to manhandle subjects.
Yes you a wrong i never claimed that. You seem to imagine reading things that don't exists. Things in the CPA now Me :cautious:

You still claim it can be done anywhere by the side of the road or in a dirty police office.
As per Justice projet yes that what they said
Go ask them.
You're the one not understanding that 'anywhere' refers to location and not place.
Oh look the dictionary disagrees with you

anywhere
noun
Definition of anywhere
: any place

Did you misread that?
And if they gave you the article you want explaining common sense it would be long, not that it's long as it is now.
you would misread that as well , then make crap about people.
But yeah, I'm wrong. :rolleyes:

You said it! Yes you are wrong.

So again feel free to check with the justice project.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,248
So basically trying yo put this whole story in perspective:

- Lady is stopped and breathalyzed - which she allegedly failed. Even if no Breathalyzer was used police have suspicion of drunk driving they should request blood sample be taken.
- breathalyzers are notoriously unreliable hence bloods must be taken (there are no ifs and or buts on this point) to prove her innocence or guilt.
- She is taken to police station for blood to be taken.
-She resists and had to be forcibly restrained ,which is what the police are allowed to do - the level of which can be debated.
- we from the video cannot see if she asked for a doctor or to be taken anywhere else so any arguments on what she can do or should do are kind of Moot. All it seems is as if she is creaming blue murder not to have her blood taken - which guilty or not really makes her seem guilty.
-He attitude screams of either guilt, being drunk or a mental disorder.
-This screaming plays on our emotions and makes her being restrained seem harsher then it probably is.
- the claim the needle was not opened in front of her is just that a claim as we this was not in the video so we cannot ascertain if this is the reason for her refusal.
- the person (we assume is a Nurse or doctor) taking the blood does not have gloves - which is not hygienic for anyone there.
- police are not properly trained or lack ineptitude to deal with situations like this
But yes you never said, I am wrong, and the JPSA doesn't know how to use English. We don't have a buffoon here who doesn't understand English and makes claims that can't be supported.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,314
But yes you never said, I am wrong, and the JPSA doesn't know how to use English. We don't have a buffoon here who doesn't understand English and makes claims that can't be supported.
that's you ,you are the one claims something is in the CPA that isn't!
 
Top