Firearmfanatic
*Banned*
Since the other thread concerning this got closed/locked prematurely. Here is the video again. You be the judge.
Last edited:
why would the other post be closed?? looks like none of the by laws were broken just people stating there option on the topic, no bs member was attacked?
By the way, as to locking this thread, the truth must always prevail.
I will say that if the driver is a LEO, even if he is not at fault, it is SOP in probably all LE agencies that you take an immediate blood sample. Maybeeeeee, that's what Payne was getting at, as far as implied consent, but those are his internal agency rules, not the hospital's or state law, according to the article, so the nurse wouldn't be bound by it. His response seems overboard, from what I saw, but I'm sure she will be compensated nicely for it.
I have an idea where you are trying to go with your post according to "implied consent". However, implied consent only legally applies to the person/victim to save their life when and if they are unconcious and does not apply to provide any and all evidence to their guilt or innocence in any and all lawful actions.
Absolutely. No, I don't think it would hold up under legal implied consent definition, but Payne's frame of mind might have been "well, he consented to department policies as terms of his employment, so if he was awake he would consent to a blood draw". Although, even then, he would have the choice, were he conscious, to refuse the blood draw, but he would probably be terminated from the agency.