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
20,826
Like we expect an internal investigation to come to any different conclusion. The issue of leverage and pressing charges has been explained.

And no, unless there is a law which allows it the state by default can't act. It's not the other way around.

We've already dealt with the procedure early in the thread. I'm not going to rehash it again. Especially as you ignored it then as you keep ignoring everything.

"and provide the same law where you claim a female cannot be arrested by a male officer."
And stop with this BS. The arrest already happened. The issue is with the evidence collection AFTERWARDS. Get it? Good.
 

Zoomzoom

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
4,738
BTW - the justice project (Who i would trust over the police) would have had a field day with this one but:
It might not be illegal for a male police officer to restrain a female, says the chair of the Justice Project SA, Howard Dembovsky.
Now who is being disingenuous? Quote what he actually said, not the journalist's interpretation.

Dembovsky said there's more to the video than just male traffic officers holding down a female.

“In the video we see a woman who is purporting to be a nurse, who is not even wearing surgical gloves, trying to take a blood sample from that woman. Can a male restrain a female for the purpose of blood to be drawn from that person? It’s an interesting question of law and the answer to it is I actually don’t know," he said.
Then

City of Johannesburg MMC for public safety Michael Sun threatened action against JMPD officers if they were to be found guilty of any wrongdoing.

On whether or not a male officer can restrain a female, Sun said that the law does permit a police officer to physically restrain a person who refuses to provide a blood sample for law enforcement purposes.
I'm arguing that how that was done was wrong, not that it was wrong to do it in the first place. Officers have a right to restrain people - duh! They would be unable to effectively police anything if they didn't. But there is still a right way and a wrong way to do that. Wrong way = police brutality or excessive use of force, or in this case way over the line in inappropriateness. Remove it from the specifics of the situation i.e. remove your prejudice against her being a drunk driver and think of her as a woman being held down by a man ... still think that the way she was being held was OK?

Some female person you are close to comes back from the police station and says - I was an idiot and freaked out at having blood taken and there was this room with 5 men in it and one of them held me down on the table by standing between my legs and lying on top of me so the nurse could take blood ... STILL sound OK to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

Craig

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
13,285
Now who is being disingenuous? Quote what he actually said, not the journalist's interpretation.



Remove it from the specifics of the situation i.e. remove your prejudice against her being a drunk driver and think of her as a woman being held down by a man ... still think that the way she was being held was OK?
All the other waffle, and the fact that she is a woman, none of that matters. This is a matter of a criminal being uncooperative with police. All criminals should be treated the same, you cooperate, good, you don't, the gloves should come off.

The police in this country has been way too soft on crime for way too long. There is an example of a person right here in this thread, just a few pages back, that did the same but cooperated. He knew he was wrong and took responsibility for it, chances are that now he will never do this again. This woman on the other hand just learned she can evade justice by putting up a scene, will she really care about doing this again? Doubtful.

It's time this country start stamping down on all crime, and yes, drinking and driving is a criminal offense as far as I'm aware. An offense that can easily, and does regularly, cause the death of innocent people on the road.
 

Craig

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
13,285
a, that ALWAYS matters!

B. please go find yourself some draconian authoritarian police state to live in. I'm sure you will be very happy.
No it doesn't. A criminal is a criminal. If you don't cooperate with police that's on you, no matter who you are, or what gender you are.

Females fought for equality, you've now got it. #LiveWithIt
 

Zoomzoom

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
4,738
No it doesn't. A criminal is a criminal. If you don't cooperate with police that's on you, no matter who you are, or what gender you are.

Females fought for equality, you've now got it. #LiveWithIt
You are not! a criminal until found guilty in a court of law. And even people who have been convicted of a crime have rights! Otherwise we might as well be chopping hands and heads off with a rusty knife and hanging people in the village square.

And you can shove your #livewithit where the sun don't shine. And FYI I have never deigned to lower myself to mere equality.
 

Craig

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
13,285
You are not! a criminal until found guilty in a court of law. And even people who have been convicted of a crime have rights! Otherwise we might as well be chopping hands and heads off with a rusty knife and hanging people in the village square.

And you can shove your #livewithit where the sun don't shine. And FYI I have never deigned to lower myself to mere equality.
Where did I say criminals don't have rights? I said, please read this slowly, if you don't cooperate with the police (when caught in a crime, which this "lady" was) you should live with the consequences of how you are treated. They still have rights yes, no one said anything but, but this criminal (and yes, she is a criminal even though not yet convicted as she was caught in the act) went on a rampage to try and evade justice. And because of social media she got away with it.

If a criminal ever breaks into your house (yes, if he breaks in he is a criminal even if not yet convicted) and then tries to get out of paying for his crimes, how do you think he/she/it should be handled, with gloves? Of course not, only an idiot would say something like that, he/she/it should be forced to comply if he/she/it doesn't want to. So yes, live with it.
 

thechamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
20,527
In the absence of any new developments it looks like this thread has run its course, besides being used to trade insults I don't see any other way forward.
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
3,721
a, that ALWAYS matters!

B. please go find yourself some draconian authoritarian police state to live in. I'm sure you will be very happy.
I thought men and woman were so supposed to be equal in all ways? One requiring special treatment the other gets denied obviously means that there is no equality. Arn't woman supposed to "not need men" and "be fierce" or whatever else?
 

Craig

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
13,285
I thought men and woman were so supposed to be equal in all ways? One requiring special treatment the other gets denied obviously means that there is no equality. Arn't woman supposed to "not need men" and "be fierce" or whatever else?
Only when it suits them, when it doesn't you are an idiot for pointing it out. Or at least that's how it is according to the local feminazi.

Equal treatment for all and special treatment for some. Or what do you say Aunty Zoomer?
 
Last edited:

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
2,887
According to Sec 65(9) a person arrested for one of the drink-and-drive offences is not entitled to refuse permission for a blood specimen to be taken.
And if they do refuse they are liable to an offence in terms of the law.

All the other waffle, and the fact that she is a woman, none of that matters. This is a matter of a criminal being uncooperative with police. All criminals should be treated the same, you cooperate, good, you don't, the gloves should come off.
No, procedure has to be followed. If the procedure is followed then you don't run the risk of the lack of procedure resulting in any loopholes in the prosecution of the alleged offender.

Where did I say criminals don't have rights? I said, please read this slowly, if you don't cooperate with the police (when caught in a crime, which this "lady" was) you should live with the consequences of how you are treated.
Read above. The argument of excessive force can only be tolerated if such force is to mitigate an active and imminent threat of danger.

They still have rights yes, no one said anything but, but this criminal (and yes, she is a criminal even though not yet convicted as she was caught in the act) went on a rampage to try and evade justice. And because of social media she got away with it.
Police do not determine who is a criminal. The alleged "got away with" is directly as a result of the polices lack of restraint and procedure in dealing with the matter and the resulting publicity it caused.

If a criminal ever breaks into your house (yes, if he breaks in he is a criminal even if not yet convicted) and then tries to get out of paying for his crimes, how do you think he/she/it should be handled, with gloves? Of course not, only an idiot would say something like that, he/she/it should be forced to comply if he/she/it doesn't want to. So yes, live with it.
No, the police should act within their mandate and use the necessary force in order to perform said mandate following procedure.
 

Craig

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
13,285
And if they do refuse they are liable to an offence in terms of the law.



No, procedure has to be followed. If the procedure is followed then you don't run the risk of the lack of procedure resulting in any loopholes in the prosecution of the alleged offender.



Read above. The argument of excessive force can only be tolerated if such force is to mitigate an active and imminent threat of danger.



Police do not determine who is a criminal. The alleged "got away with" is directly as a result of the polices lack of restraint and procedure in dealing with the matter and the resulting publicity it caused.



No, the police should act within their mandate and use the necessary force in order to perform said mandate following procedure.
Ok, so if, according to you, they were not supposed to pin her down to take blood, what exactly were they supposed to do, and how?
 

Sollie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
4,128
Ok, so if, according to you, they were not supposed to pin her down to take blood, what exactly were they supposed to do, and how?
Charge her with obstruction of justice, violations of Sec 65(9) ...
Throw her in a cell.
Let a magistrate decide on the appropriate punishment.

The problem is whoever tried pressing this, would have lost and mud on the faces of both sides. Two wrongs don't make a right.

In the absence of any new developments it looks like this thread has run its course, besides being used to trade insults I don't see any other way forward.
Seems we agree once per month :)
 

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
2,887
Ok, so if, according to you, they were not supposed to pin her down to take blood, what exactly were they supposed to do, and how?
Let me rather phrase it like this for you Craig. The wording of the act is "No person shall refuse that a specimen of blood, or a specimen of breath, be taken of him or her ". It does not state "The police should use whatever force is necessary to obtain a blood sample". The act of refusing, in itself, is in contravention of the act and a court would then determine whether such act of refusal was criminal. In the event where such direction is not given by the act the police should revert to a charge of obstruction for refusing such specimen and only resort to procedural and tested conduct which would not be placed under scrutiny.
 

Craig

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
13,285
Let me rather phrase it like this for you Craig. The wording of the act is "No person shall refuse that a specimen of blood, or a specimen of breath, be taken of him or her ". It does not state "The police should use whatever force is necessary to obtain a blood sample". The act of refusing, in itself, is in contravention of the act and a court would then determine whether such act of refusal was criminal. In the event where such direction is not given by the act the police should revert to a charge of obstruction for refusing such specimen and only resort to procedural and tested conduct which would not be placed under scrutiny.
Early on in this thread law was quoted saying they may use minimal force to draw blood. But as Champ said, this is now just going around in circles. This drunken criminal has now gotten away with her crime, nothing anyone can do about that now anymore.
 

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
2,887
Early on in this thread law was quoted saying they may use minimal force to draw blood. But as Champ said, this is now just going around in circles. This drunken criminal has now gotten away with her crime, nothing anyone can do about that now anymore.
Procedural guidelines and what is law are two very distinct things and should be followed to avoid this entire situation. If she has had charges withdrawn the only people to blame are the police themselves.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,591
Now who is being disingenuous? Quote what he actually said, not the journalist's interpretation.
I'm not being disingenuous i quoted exactly what was in the article not to mention i linked it (numerous Different articles have the same qoute BTW) ?

Then



I'm arguing that how that was done was wrong, not that it was wrong to do it in the first place. Officers have a right to restrain people - duh! They would be unable to effectively police anything if they didn't. But there is still a right way and a wrong way to do that. Wrong way = police brutality or excessive use of force, or in this case way over the line in inappropriateness. Remove it from the specifics of the situation i.e. remove your prejudice against her being a drunk driver and think of her as a woman being held down by a man ... still think that the way she was being held was OK?



Some female person you are close to comes back from the police station and says - I was an idiot and freaked out at having blood taken and there was this room with 5 men in it and one of them held me down on the table by standing between my legs and lying on top of me so the nurse could take blood ... STILL sound OK to you?

She was explained the situation prior to getting to the station , she had time on the way and was allowed the opportunity to call her friends , she was fighting with them for an hour (in front of her friends BTW)

Why would an innocent person refuse a blood test?

Take her gender out of it - You think that the behavior is OK?
 

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
2,887
Why would an innocent person refuse a blood test?
Why would an innocent person refuse a body cavity search? Why would an innocent person refuse their home to be searched? We supposedly live in a society where you're innocent until proven guilty. To prove someone guilty you need evidence, such evidence needs to be obtained according to the law and procedures which govern those who enforce them.
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
19,544
She was explained the situation prior to getting to the station , she had time on the way and was allowed the opportunity to call her friends , she was fighting with them for an hour (in front of her friends BTW)
?
If she was only slightly over on the breathylzer, that hour could have been enough for her body to metabolize the alcohol to bring her under the limit - maybe what she was hoping for.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,591
Why would an innocent person refuse a body cavity search? Why would an innocent person refuse their home to be searched? We supposedly live in a society where you're innocent until proven guilty. To prove someone guilty you need evidence, such evidence needs to be obtained according to the law and procedures which govern those who enforce them.
And they got the evidence within those laws and procedures so what's your issue.
If she was only slightly over on the breathylzer, that hour could have been enough for her body to metabolize the alcohol to bring her under the limit - maybe what she was hoping for.
Seems likely
 
Top