Yep, we're all just paranoid. This is an acquaintenance who lives near an overpass (like 300m away), I suspect he was pulled over as he took the offramp where the cop was probably radaring people.
Yep, we're all just paranoid. This is an acquaintenance who lives near an overpass (like 300m away), I suspect he was pulled over as he took the offramp where the cop was probably radaring people.
And? That’s legal. What’s the point you’re making?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
---------------------------------------------------
Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.
Wasn't legal until the new law passed, which is exactly what we are complaining about. Warrantless invasions of persons with no supporting evidence/reason to do so.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Essentially expect to be required to provide a sample any time you are pulled over. Welcome to the 21st century comrade
And we “can” use excessive force, we “can” illegally search people, there are a lot of things we “can” do that aren’t related to impaired driving and are far worse than this. Why is this the hang up when it comes to police powers? There are far greater powers being abused out there. Not to say this is any less important, but I’m curious as to why this one is the thing everyone is going after.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Let me be clear: I’m not saying to ignore the concerns about this. I’m just wondering why you are all so hung up on this when that specific provision of the CC won’t apply to most everyone.
Last edited by phil98z24; 01-12-2019 at 07:43 PM.
---------------------------------------------------
Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.
Ex's be cray?
Ultracrepidarian
Assuming Phil your right which I am.. I'm mostly hung up on the fact that our police forces across canada are not interested in setting the media straight on these crazy scenarios.
Our police forces can get a media release instantly. They can get the word out if they want. If the stories in the media are far from the truth what's the delay in setting them straight?
It took an hour for the rcmp to release a media statement when shannon Phillip's continued to make up stories in the media regarding her dealings with the rcmp yet its been a couple weeks of non sense stories on the drunk driving laws and we dont have any police forces on record calling out the media shit storm???
I'd argue that it's not the primary role of police forces to interpret legislation. That's the role of the courts.
If a police service puts out a public statement about changes in legislation and what is or is not meant by them, that's overstepping thier role, and judges could interpret differently, which would make the police look foolish at best, or dishonest at worst.
I'd also say it's not in the best interests of the police forces to publicize thier planned enforcement methods. They can't (and shouldn't) rule out enforcement options that are permitted by legislation, even if those methods aren't going to be a normal part of thier work.
Last edited by ExtraSlow; 01-12-2019 at 08:13 PM.
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
why wouldnt it be our police force clarifying changes to our criminal code? Why is it the media doing this?? If you want people understanding the laws and all the repercussions to things then it's best explained by our police.
Theres no negative consequence in having the general public understanding their rights unless of course that's not what the police want.
Did it bother you that police could already stop anyone for no reason other than to check documents and driver fitness?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
---------------------------------------------------
Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.
Phil, in the case above, what would have happened if the person had reduced lung capacity and could not blow a successful test?
.
Last edited by Rat Fink; 12-06-2020 at 01:57 PM.
Thanks for the 14 years of LOLs. Govern yourselves accordingly and avoid uppercut reactions!
I think the police should be able to pull anyone over and make them blow. Driving on public roads should not be considered a right, it should be considered a monitored privilege. Getting someone to blow at home after the fact is certainly a different story.
Side note: I once had the cops show up to my door claiming someone had reported my wife for drinking and driving. I had to subtly indicate to them that she is just a bad driver. Once the cop picked up what I was putting down, he laughed and they went on their way. (She was also clearly not drunk.)
Good to know. Thanks.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
My buddy has a machine and I always had a hard time getting it to take a sample even with normal lungs. Probably no where as good as the one the police have. Q
As for the change, I'm all for closing that loop hole. That greasy RCMP office, Monty robinson in, Vancouver used it to get out of a DUI fatality.
Last edited by dirtsniffer; 01-13-2019 at 12:07 AM.
came across a police article stating what Phil has mentioned. Theres no rebuttal from a lawyer or anything. It took about 3 weeks for a police force to clear up the confusion spread in the media.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4859789/e...-driving-laws/
...
Last edited by Sugarphreak; 08-18-2019 at 03:36 PM.
It's too far and I find it agonizing to say that because Impaired Driving is a chronic problem but it's too far.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
There are too many cops without the adequate judgement to leave me the fuck alone after I've had 3 beers over a long dinner instead of giving me a 24hr suspension and maybe towing my car and calling social services to take my kid away at roadside. All based on a double-A battery not legally binding pocket toy instead of an actual accurate BAC measuring instrument.
The whole system needs an overhaul because the fear mongering of "3 drinks and you're 0.09 if you're ____ kg" is a massive lie. A massive lie that's now causing more problems than it was meant to solve.
I've been up to 0.04 and couldn't fathom thinking I was ok to drive. The time I managed to crack 0.08 I'm positive I couldn't get my keys in the ignition switch assuming I could even find my car. It's boneless drunk.
You know who drives at 0.08? Career drunks like hardened alky's. Funny thing is they're better off at 0.08 than 0.01 because that's their established normal state.
Either slash the limit down and stop lying to people about alcohol or better yet - eliminate the concept of limit and start video taping a standardized roadside test for impairment to also catch all these stoned losers too. That would bury some of these useless lawyers and save the police the money on these useless machines that the lawyers keep defeating.
"Your honor - here's the video of the alleged impaired driver failing to count backward from 22 after vomiting on the sidewalk and then slipping and falling into it. I rest my case".
The fear mongering of 3 drinks putting you over isn’t being done by the government. That’s something the service industry and anti nanny-state warriors are making up because they aren’t well informed. We had a very long thread about this. You can blame everyone else for that.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
3 beers over a long dinner won’t even get you close to 24hr suspension territory, and again, that’s not the government saying it would. That’s the people needlessly hand wringing over it. That “pocket toy” is actually a legally binding instrument that gives grounds for arrest, and also for administrative penalties. I wouldn’t exactly be so sure of yourself when it comes to that. ASD and intoxilyzers aren’t the issue; it’s the grounds for getting people on to and in front of them, and the other stuff that happens outside of that.
I’m not sure where you’re getting your opinion from, but it’s an interesting one to say the least.
---------------------------------------------------
Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.
Can you prove that the pocket toys are legally binding? They certainly didn't used to be but I'm open to newer info. They were/are a guideline. They should be an excellent tool for a good officer to get a drunk off the road with a quick 24hr suspension by telling him "you ain't gonna pass the real BAC test if I take you to the station... Just take this 24" rather than a shift-killing amount of paperwork and procedural nonsense for one charge.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I think we need a faster way to put people on ignore.
Originally posted by Thales of Miletus
If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
Originally posted by Toma
fact.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Check the Criminal Code. They’ve always been. They aren’t a guideline; they give rise to RPG to believe someone’s too impaired to drive, or to administer roadside sanctions which can be retested upon request with an Intoxilyzer... which will give the same result. Furthermore, we don’t use our discretion when it comes to a fail on a roadside. That’s an impaired driver, and that’s a charge. It’s not “nonsense” when it comes to a significant cause of criminal death. 24 hour suspensions on the basis of “I’m doing you a favour” doesn’t exactly deter the bozo who was too hammered to drive.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
---------------------------------------------------
Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.