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

Craig

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
13,196
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.
The breathalyzer already gave them reason to believe she was not innocent at all, so there's always that.
 

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
2,871
And they got the evidence within those laws and procedures so what's your issue.
Now you're being obtuse. The laws and procedures don't govern restraint as demonstrated in the video which is the part you fail to understand. The police don't have to resort to what was shown as the very refusal in itself is a criminal offence in excess of the actual offence alleged. The reason for the refusal doesn't even need to be considered at that point as the initial breathalyser result in conjunction with the refusal would easily result in a conviction.

The question on why she was doing what she did will be the focus of the court process and not the police mandate.
 

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
2,871
The breathalyzer already gave them reason to believe she was not innocent at all, so there's always that.
Breathalyzer results have been challenged routinely which is why corroborating evidence of a blood test is generally the next step however the breathalyzer and the refusal of a blood specimen would provide such corroboration in itself unless a lawyer can nullify the breathalyzer and observational evidence to begin with.
 

Craig

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
13,196
Breathalyzer results have been challenged routinely which is why corroborating evidence of a blood test is generally the next step however the breathalyzer and the refusal of a blood specimen would provide such corroboration in itself unless a lawyer can nullify the breathalyzer and observational evidence to begin with.
Which makes a blood test needed. She was just looking to get off and she got it right. Hopefully we don't see more of this type of behaviour in future.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,534
Now you're being obtuse. The laws and procedures don't govern restraint as demonstrated in the video which is the part you fail to understand. The police don't have to resort to what was shown as the very refusal in itself is a criminal offence in excess of the actual offence alleged. The reason for the refusal doesn't even need to be considered at that point as the initial breathalyser result in conjunction with the refusal would easily result in a conviction.

The question on why she was doing what she did will be the focus of the court process and not the police mandate.
Im not im just interpreting what i see same as you.

the legislation basically states An acceptable level of force is required the said level is open to interpretation.
Her crazy screams and resistance are swaying your interpretation that it was excessive -another law comes in to mind Newton's 3rd - the more she fights the harder they going to restrain her.
 

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
2,871
Which makes a blood test needed. She was just looking to get off and she got it right. Hopefully we don't see more of this type of behaviour in future.
All parties' behaviour was ridiculous. Like I've said, the police only put their case at risk by acting in such a way and anyone refusing a blood specimen STILL will be found guilty of obustruction and DUI.

Im not im just interpreting what i see same as you.

the legislation basically states An acceptable level of force is required the said level is open to interpretation.
Her crazy screams and resistance are swaying your interpretation that it was excessive -another law comes in to mind Newton's 3rd - the more she fights the harder they going to restrain her.
No, my interpretation is based on logic, not emotion or a scientific principle. The police resorted to an idiotic display of poor judgment which is problematic not only endangering someone but also their own chances of a successful prosecution of a drunk driver. Simple as that.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,534
All parties' behaviour was ridiculous. Like I've said, the police only put their case at risk by acting in such a way and anyone refusing a blood specimen STILL will be found guilty of obustruction and DUI.



No, my interpretation is based on logic, not emotion or a scientific principle. The police resorted to an idiotic display of poor judgment which is problematic not only endangering someone but also their own chances of a successful prosecution of a drunk driver. Simple as that.
I don't see her being harmed or being in any danger?
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,701
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.
Do we live in a police state where people are guilty before being proven so by the court? No. All your other waffle doesn't matter. The police know the procedures and flaunted them. If they didn't they would have had legal recourse. So not the scenario of letting criminals get off as you claim. One would think that in a country where police regularly abuse their power people would be against this.

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.
It's for the courts to decide if someone is a criminal or not, not for you. If she is guilty, and I do mean if, then it's the bad conduct of the police that caused her to get away with it. SO YES, LIVE WITH IT!

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.
No such law exists. The law that was quoted says that no person shall refuse. It does NOT state police are allowed to use force. In the absence of such right the state can't act. If she got away with driving drunk it's all on the police and they know it.

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) ?




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?
Many reasons. Apparently you don't know how people with a real phobia react. Her behaviour resembles it to a tee.

And they got the evidence within those laws and procedures so what's your issue.
No they didn't. You keep making this BS claim but can't substantiate it.

Im not im just interpreting what i see same as you.

the legislation basically states An acceptable level of force is required the said level is open to interpretation.
Her crazy screams and resistance are swaying your interpretation that it was excessive -another law comes in to mind Newton's 3rd - the more she fights the harder they going to restrain her.
It states no such thing. You're making up BS claims. Even your own article proves you wrong.

They used an appropriate level of force , given the situation .
What makes you think it was too much ?
No level of force was appropriate here. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,534
Many reasons. Apparently you don't know how people with a real phobia react. Her behaviour resembles it to a tee.
you fall for her BS act her behavior resemble a drama queen. she wasn't afraid of **** , she was pretending.
all it resembles is the tantrums of a 2 year old or a totally Drunk individual to a tee.
if she had a phobia her Boyfriend would have said that in the video ,

No they didn't. You keep making this BS claim but can't substantiate it.
Irs been substatiationed already, you have ignore it.

It states no such thing. You're making up BS claims. Even your own article proves you wrong.
I'm not it was provided by me and plenty of other people. my article said they were cleared. How is that wrong, I think you are missing something,

No level of force was appropriate here. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.
they were lenient on her , let her carry on with her tantrum like a 2 year old for over an hour.

What's so hard for you to understand , if she is innocent she should have just taken the blood test , your BS story about needles is just that BS, not once has it been brought up accept by you, nor did her Boy friend and r the other dude mention that. they were recording and talking, did they once advise anyone on the video or to the police that she has a phobia, no -
So stop defending the tantrums of a drunk.
 
Last edited:

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,701
you fall for her BS act her behavior resemble a drama queen. she wasn't afraid of **** , she was pretending.
all it resembles is the tantrums of a 2 year old
That's for the courts to deal decide, not the police to once again take the law into their own hands. Something you keep on missing.

Irs been substatiationed already, you have ignore it.


I'm not it was provided by me and plenty of other people.


they were lenient on her , let her carry on with her tantrum like a 2 year old for over an hour.
Keep being obtuse and saying BS. It hasn't been substantiated because no such substantiation exists.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,534
That's for the courts to deal decide, not the police to once again take the law into their own hands. Something you keep on missing.
why must the court decide , - you made a claim she was afraid of needles.

Keep being obtuse and saying BS. It hasn't been substantiated because no such substantiation exists.
You are being obtuse its been posted numerous times not only by me , and mentioned numerous times over social media by the relevant parties.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,701
why must the court decide , - you made a claim she was afraid of needles.
I said it's plausible. It's the court's job to decide that BECAUSE WE DON'T LIVE IN A POLICE STATE.

You are being obtuse its been posted numerous times not only by me , and mentioned numerous times over social media by the relevant parties.
NOBODY HAS POSTED IT YET. YOU KEEP MAKING THAT CLAIM THAT IS BLATANTLY AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT. YOU ARE THE ONE BEING OBTUSE. JUST BECAUSE YOU MAKE THE CLAIM THAT THE SKY IS GREEN A THOUSAND TIMES DOESN'T CHANGE THE REALITY IT'S REALLY BLUE.
 

Sollie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
4,097
O my jinnetjie! Het hy hul pypies darem lekker goed geblaas, of wil hulle hom nou ook steek?
Te goed geblaas. Toe wil hul hom steek. Die 14" kombuismes wat hul wou gebruik, omdat hy kwansuis skuldig was, was glo te veel vir hom. Hy't gese: Ken jul spoed, watch my nou ...

Hy behoort nounou daar te wees.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,534
I think your caps lock is stuck , or are you typing while intoxicated

I said it's plausible. It's the court's job to decide that BECAUSE WE DON'T LIVE IN A POLICE STATE.
no you said it describes her behavior to a Tee , well her behavior is how a drunk person behaves to a Tee
Of course not we not in a police state, we also not in a lawless state where drunk suspects can say hey i don't want to give my bood , and female suspects cannot be arrested.

NOBODY HAS POSTED IT YET. YOU KEEP MAKING THAT CLAIM THAT IS BLATANTLY AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT. YOU ARE THE ONE BEING OBTUSE. JUST BECAUSE YOU MAKE THE CLAIM THAT THE SKY IS GREEN A THOUSAND TIMES DOESN'T CHANGE THE REALITY IT'S REALLY BLUE.
Its been posted numerous times , not only by me you just want to ignore it. Also who claimed the sky is Blue , its transparent - sheesh dude stop talking BS , making up Stories about male officers cannot arrest females now talking kak about the sky.
 

Sollie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
4,097
no you said it describes her behavior to a Tee , well her behavior is how a drunk person behaves to a Tee
Of course not we not in a police state, we also not in a lawless state where drunk suspects can say hey i don't want to give my bood , and female suspects cannot be arrested.
Wrong. Regardless of whether she was drunk as a skunk and refused, of had a needle phobia. The cops had a right to insist. When she refused, it did not absolve her - she should have been arrested on the spot and appeared before a magistrate later. She was wrong. Full stop. That is how teh real law works.

However, the cops going overboard also fvcked up their own case. Yes, JPMD looked at it and found the cops in their rights. Just like the time they found nothing wrong with cameras on the tailgate of a van. There was a reason they did not pursue it further. The reasons were highlighted earlier. They screwed the pooch.

Bottom line - both sides were wrong. That lady drawing blood, sans gloves, I wonder what happened to her.

This whole thing is a typical example of why guilty parties get away.
 
Top