Drunk sends young girl to hospital

[ukcanuck]

he's arguing that we all have a choice so the penalty doesnt matter
look, all I'm saying is prosecute drunk drivers to the full extent of the law. No problem as long as its fair an even handed I am all for it! but lets not get carried away with ridiculous notions about extreme penalties that are beyond justifiable. This is still a humane and tolerant society, even drunk drivers need mercy and compassion once they have paid their debt. lets not make the penalty so un-payable that it creates more problems than it solves..

I never said or argued the penalty for driving drunk doesnt matter. What I have said is simply this, to drive a motorized vehicle while drunk or impaired by drugs is a CHOICE. One that can be avoided if pseople who drink or get high simply choose not to drive after doing so.
Pretty simple eh? Not rocket science.
So once again, please do not put words into my mouth.

I dont have to put words in your mouth. I just use the words you say and take note of where and when you say them. It's called reading comprehension and I know you can do it too, so you can see I've noted your use of choice and even though its irritating how you use that word to suit your narrow definition, Ive left it alone for this thread. And instead have pointed out to the reader that you are arguing for extreme penalties like Long prison sentences through the timing of your post which was In defense someone who was pushing for extreme and unworkable penalties.

[dreamon]

For most of us drinking is a choice, for some less fortunate with addiction issues it is not a choice.
Driving is a choice and for some a necessity.

Drinking and driving is a choice.

If one is self aware, you will know that you can feel tipsy after different amounts of alcohol. All sorts of factors will determine alcohol's effect on you. For myself sometimes I can feel it after one beer, sometimes nothing after three.
When blowing into an ASD or BAC the reading does not take into account your ability to handle alcohol, or your mood, food level, stress or other factors that affect alcohols effect on you.
Having been blown into BACs as a test and training subject I can tell you that for me, I was utterly and totally impaired before blowing .08. At .05 I wouldn't have considered operating anything least of all a vehicle.
I have also seen people being very cognitive, excellent motor skills and blow .08 or more.

People who try to guestimate their breach alcohol level are playing with fire, both from a legal and moral (injuring others as a result of your choices) standpoint.

It is easier to drink no alcohol at all if driving, zero, none. Take turns as DD. Drinking is often habitual esepcially in a social setting, not so much habitual from the POV of the alcohol, but the action of holding a glass ot bottle and drinking from it. Try no alcohol beers, finally some good ones have been made. Order anything buy an alcoholic beverage, you can still sit with your friends and partake. Being the sober one and watching the others can be entertaining!!

[Fancy]

And instead have pointed out to the reader that you are arguing for extreme penalties like Long prison sentences

I would like to point out to readers that you are incorrect and instead point out that the law should be utilized as is written now.

[diggerdick]

So when a cops driving is impaired, by the use of a cell phone or using their computer while operating a motor vehicle which we are told is just as bad as drinking and driving. and an accident occurs where injuries or death happens.

They should be prosecuted to the full Extent of the law , no excuses no two or three year paid holiday.



Now , all the law enforcement heroes will start backtracking and try to explain how special they are and the rules don't really apply to them.

But whenever serious accidents occur, and they were caused by the use of a cell phone or using a computer while the motor vehicle was in motion it is quietly covered up. like the RCMP officer who swerved into oncoming traffic going up the Harrison Lake a few years ago and killed three or four young people.

[Trunk-Monkey]

I dont have to put words in your mouth. I just use the words you say and take note of where and when you say them. It's called reading comprehension and I know you can do it too, so you can see I've noted your use of choice and even though its irritating how you use that word to suit your narrow definition, Ive left it alone for this thread. And instead have pointed out to the reader that you are arguing for extreme penalties like Long prison sentences through the timing of your post which was In defense someone who was pushing for extreme and unworkable penalties.

No you are assuming things when you read my posts and placing your own opinions with thos assumptions. People have a choice whether to drink and drive or to do drugs and drive whether you like it or not..that much is pretty simple. Its called freedom of choice. Just as a person is free to choose to drink a glass of water then drive a car they can choose to not drive if they have had one too many. You drink too much...you CHOOSE not to drive and or take a cab etc. If your an alcoholic and fall off the wagon...you can choose to do that but you can also choose not to drive a car while in that state.
I am not arguing for any more penalties then we already have. I am happy with the IRP and the Criminal Code process as it calls out the penalties. What I would like to see is judges applying these penalties more often and have these penalties that are already on the books used as they were intended.
I am quite able to get my point across to many readers so I ask you again...do not put words into my mouth or assume you know what my posts mean and then attempt to explain my point of view to anyone as that is it not your place to attempt to speak for me...

[Fancy]

I've read quite a bit about charges recommended against RCMP for driving without due care and attention including the Harrison accident (2 people killed).

[Trunk-Monkey]

So when a cops driving is impaired, by the use of a cell phone or using their computer while operating a motor vehicle which we are told is just as bad as drinking and driving. and an accident occurs where injuries or death happens.
They should be prosecuted to the full Extent of the law , no excuses no two or three year paid holiday.
Now , all the law enforcement heroes will start backtracking and try to explain how special they are and the rules don't really apply to them.
But whenever serious accidents occur, and they were caused by the use of a cell phone or using a computer while the motor vehicle was in motion it is quietly covered up. like the RCMP officer who swerved into oncoming traffic going up the Harrison Lake a few years ago and killed three or four young people.

Interesting point.
1st lets clear something up. The "impaired" portion of your post is an attempt to mislead people IMO. When a driver (cop or not) causes a collision because of the use of a computer or other electronic devices the violation could be called "Driving without due care and attention" of "Distracted driving", not "impaired" anything.
2nd the BCMVA allows police and other emergency responders to use said equipment as long as they working. If this is the case and a collision occurs the same could be said to be true but when they were using said equipment it was not a violation from the outset.
That all said members are not supposed to be using their PC computers while driving. Yes it does happen and I may or may not have done it myself and frankly it is wrong. Thats said I have made a effort personally to not have my PC computer open while driving as it is a distraction, but sometimes it is open and I am not even using it as it was open from the call before and was left open and not in use.
3rd The case you are referring to is unknown to me so I cannot comment. I have read about it in the media but that is about it.
4th you may or may not see a cop on a cell phone while driving...this is done only in extreme cases when there is no other recourse. I am not saying you have to take my word for it but I cannot discuss the reasoning here in this forum.

[Roadster]

So when a cops driving is impaired, by the use of a cell phone or using their computer while operating a motor vehicle which we are told is just as bad as drinking and driving. and an accident occurs where injuries or death happens.
They should be prosecuted to the full Extent of the law , no excuses no two or three year paid holiday.
Now , all the law enforcement heroes will start backtracking and try to explain how special they are and the rules don't really apply to them.
But whenever serious accidents occur, and they were caused by the use of a cell phone or using a computer while the motor vehicle was in motion it is quietly covered up. like the RCMP officer who swerved into oncoming traffic going up the Harrison Lake a few years ago and killed three or four young people.

There is probably another thread for this conversation,,, meanwhile since you dropped it on here I will say I would rather a cop looking at a computer then a drunk having a hair raising good time on our roads, mind you I see often a cop on the side of a road reading their computers so I am betting when they can they do. Now lets argue that cop thing and top it off with sterios in cars and GPS and Ipods and even crying kids in the back seat,,, K, this is about boozing and driving.

[dreamon]

4th you may or may not see a cop on a cell phone while driving...this is done only in extreme cases when there is no other recourse. I am not saying you have to take my word for it but I cannot discuss the reasoning here in this forum.

To help the people who will chastise the police for any reason whatsoever, I will elaborate a little on your 4th point.

Their are times when time crucial information (as in don't have the time to pull over as on way to call) cannot be sent or received over the air, digital radios or not. People who may need for operational reasons to speak to a member immediately may not have access to a radio, nor want to discuss the subject matter over a radio.
You never know who may be in earshot of the radio.

Obviously not directed at TM, but to others, an example: If your close friend or family member was incredibly distraught, contemplating or attempting self harm or suicide, would you really want all their personal information, history spoken over a radion where non members with earshot of a radio could hear?

[ukcanuck]

I dont have to put words in your mouth. I just use the words you say and take note of where and when you say them. It's called reading comprehension and I know you can do it too, so you can see I've noted your use of choice and even though its irritating how you use that word to suit your narrow definition, Ive left it alone for this thread. And instead have pointed out to the reader that you are arguing for extreme penalties like Long prison sentences through the timing of your post which was In defense someone who was pushing for extreme and unworkable penalties.

No you are assuming things when you read my posts and placing your own opinions with thos assumptions. People have a choice whether to drink and drive or to do drugs and drive whether you like it or not..that much is pretty simple. Its called freedom of choice. Just as a person is free to choose to drink a glass of water then drive a car they can choose to not drive if they have had one too many. You drink too much...you CHOOSE not to drive and or take a cab etc. If your an alcoholic and fall off the wagon...you can choose to do that but you can also choose not to drive a car while in that state.
I am not arguing for any more penalties then we already have. I am happy with the IRP and the Criminal Code process as it calls out the penalties. What I would like to see is judges applying these penalties more often and have these penalties that are already on the books used as they were intended.
I am quite able to get my point across to many readers so I ask you again...do not put words into my mouth or assume you know what my posts mean and then attempt to explain my point of view to anyone as that is it not your place to attempt to speak for me...

Stop playing word games and stop lying in the weeds and no one will have to try to interpret what you're trying to say. It's that simple

[Fancy]

You seem to be the only one misinterpreting Trunk-Monkey. Try using the quote feature to make your point understandable. Until the laws are changed (which they won't at least for a long long time), the system we have now will have to do.

[dreamon]

You seem to be the only one misinterpreting Trunk-Monkey. Try using the quote feature to make your point understandable. Until the laws are changed (which they won't at least for a long long time), the system we have now will have to do.

Yup. TM is quite clear in his posts with no room for interpretation unless one wanted to manipulate his words.

[ukcanuck]

You seem to be the only one misinterpreting Trunk-Monkey. Try using the quote feature to make your point understandable. Until the laws are changed (which they won't at least for a long long time), the system we have now will have to do.

Yup. TM is quite clear in his posts with no room for interpretation unless one wanted to manipulate his words.

Tell you what, you show me where I've manipulated his words and ill eat them.
Same with you fancy show me where...

I'm willing to bet that you neither one of you can .

Because I've not misquoted or misinterpreted one word.

The only thing I've done is make a supposition on his opinion based on WHERE he chose to interject into a conversation. That's not putting words in his mouth and that's not a misunderstanding.

[Fancy]

You haven't quoted anything that remotely resembles what was said.

I just use the words you say and take note of where and when you say them

Mix them up you mean.
Your words:

you are arguing for extreme penalties like Long prison sentences

Where did he state this?

[gordon_as]

Anyone who gets caught at over .05 or at over .08 deserves whatever he/she gets. Anyone who injures or kills someone while over .05 deserves much worse than they will probably get. Same goes for those who get caught a second or third , or more times.