Castanet

Cops can't run the plate of every vehicle they see on the road. A "D" sticker provides instant recognition , and an invitation to be pulled over.
Behind the wheel without your "D" , 1 year suspension and vehicle impound

Graphite wrote:

ukcanuck wrote:Well I can think of one right of the top of my head. The guy whose had one too many and heading home to a house full of dependants who will no longer have their meal ticket cause his *bleep* is going to the slammer.
There is no sweet innocent victim in an early grave or broken up in a hospital bed, but we got one idiot off the road and BC s human resources has a new family to feed. I could spin off a thousand heart breaking stories from there... Doesn't take much imagination. Poverty drug addiction separation issues ...on and on. I'm sorry I'm with you on wanting to illuminate wrongful and needless deaths on our roads but I see a bigger picture too

If that guy goes to jail that would be on him, not the law. You have got to be joking.

If you need me to spell it out to you, if someone has had one too many, they should not be driving!!!!

No I don't need you to spell anything, you're already having trouble with reading comprehension. The people who might be depending on the person going to jail are ALSO victims in such a scenario. So how about a little compassion for them when we change existing laws to make things more harsh ????
The point of this little discussion if you need it spelled out for you, is that there are some extreme suggestions offered here in reaction to the unfortunate and outrageous events surrounding the young woman in the original post. No one is suggesting we take it easy on drunk drivers past present of future.

Trunk-Monkey wrote:

ukcanuck wrote:Well I can think of one right of the top of my head. The guy whose had one too many and heading home to a house full of dependants who will no longer have their meal ticket cause his *bleep* is going to the slammer.
There is no sweet innocent victim in an early grave or broken up in a hospital bed, but we got one idiot off the road and BC s human resources has a new family to feed. I could spin off a thousand heart breaking stories from there... Doesn't take much imagination. Poverty drug addiction separation issues ...on and on. I'm sorry I'm with you on wanting to illuminate wrongful and needless deaths on our roads but I see a bigger picture too

Yes there is a bigger picture here. If the person that had one too many actually gave a crap for his dependents, he or she would not even consider the risk of drinking and driving and all that it could bring...from both sides. The point here is that you cannot condemn the laws that are set forth for deterring or attempting to prevent such acts the same way you should be condemning the person committing said acts. The person who had one too many can still put food on the table; he or she just may have to take a bus to work. If his or her job is such that he or she has to drive or needs a DL to work...well there is always McDonalds. One that holds a job where there is a DL needed should know better...period.
I know I sound like I don’t have any compassion when it comes to these sorts of things, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. I just feel that you have to put 100% of the blame right where it should be...on the person committing the act, not the laws that are there to prevent them.
The new laws have had so much media coverage and so much attention has been focused on them that IMO there is no excuse for not knowing what they are all about. Reading comments on this forum and some others though it is obvious there are still people out there that feel drinking and driving is no big deal and the gov't should just mind its own business. Thats pretty sad...but some people feel that way.

I don't want to condemn the law as it exists. far from it! i think something is working, the numbers of deaths per year (124/4 million) while unacceptable in one respect is also a lot better than I thought so lets keep going and keep lowering that number...Just not by charging people with attempted murder or locking them up and throwing away the key.
lets have a little perspective please is all I'm saying....

He's a drunk, he's driving, burn him!!!! thats not perspective......I dont know what that is

gordon_as wrote:Cops can't run the plate of every vehicle they see on the road. A "D" sticker provides instant recognition , and an invitation to be pulled over.
Behind the wheel without your "D" , 1 year suspension and vehicle impound

Thats a good idea, then we could pull him out of the car and lay a beat down ant every stop light?
hey why not a registry so we could go to where he lives and torment him for his immorality too...

I am confused why the reference to "attempted murder". The laws are in place to deal with drunk driving causing death and were posted earlier.

ukcanuck wrote:Thats a good idea, then we could pull him out of the car and lay a beat down ant every stop light?
hey why not a registry so we could go to where he lives and torment him for his immorality too...

I don't see where anyone else has even come close to suggesting this.

Mike do you have a solution to offer? You say traffic enforcement is the way....but in previous posts you complain about having too much police contact or involvement in peoples personal lives???

Nevber have I said that htere is "too much police involvement" when it comes to keeping the roads safe..Speeding tailgating ,et al, IMPAIRED driving should be enforced to the letter of the law with criminal penalties for the impaired.

You are incorrect IMO, the chronic people are not the only ones killing people if and when they drive drunk...it could and does happen to anyone that does. More people need to get that into their heads and make the right choice...NOT to drive after having one too many. Stiffer fines and harsher sentences IMO will help drive this point home....pun intended.

The allows under .05 BAC..not somewhere between this and that.

Solution , lower it to .025 and administer these stiff penalties to those over. Eliminate the "this and that" range..

No more "warns" on those ASD's just an acurated reading in actually blood alcohol content..full stop.

Fancy wrote:I am confused why the reference to "attempted murder". The laws are in place to deal with drunk driving causing death and were posted earlier.

ukcanuck wrote:Thats a good idea, then we could pull him out of the car and lay a beat down ant every stop light?
hey why not a registry so we could go to where he lives and torment him for his immorality too...

I don't see where anyone else has even come close to suggesting this.

if you read farther back in this thread you will find gems like charging anyone who gets behind the wheel with attempted murder because in fact thats what one is doing and its only luck or fate that you dont actually end up killing someone.

its this extreme response and there's plenty of it here that worries me, and my sarcasm over the letter D is exactly case in point... Ever hear of the Scarlet letter?

I did read back but don't you think the current law is sufficient?

liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

(causing bodily harm)
If someone points a vehicle at a person and runs them over - then couldn't that be called "attempted murder"?
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_C ... ted_Murder
We have the laws to be applied to drunk driving. I'd like to see more roadblocks and checks to get the drunks off the streets.

Fancy wrote:I did read back but don't you think the current law is sufficient?

liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

(causing bodily harm)
If someone points a vehicle at a person and runs them over - then couldn't that be called "attempted murder"?
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_C ... ted_Murder
We have the laws to be applied to drunk driving. I'd like to see more roadblocks and checks to get the drunks off the streets.

No i don't think its attempted murder unless there is an intended victim...
I think you can attempt to murder someone with a car but there needs to be a lot of other factors other than just getting behind the wheel with one too many...

I have to apologize, I've been out of the country since this IRP controversy thing in 2010 and had no idea this law was on the books and its consequences so when I read this quote from bike guy it got right past me...

This year I believe I took 96 impaired drivers off the road. Yes a large amount of them were the controversial IRP's. I will not apologize for taking anyones licence due to drinking and driving because I know I made sure at least 96 people were not victims of an impaired driver.

Wow that's a lot of impaired drivers in one year. Should I wonder aloud if that's about average for one cop or is that a bit overly enthusiastic?

For anyone who says its not a problem, my father (who was also an RCMP officer) was hit by a drunk driving while on duty. He eventually died as a result of the injuries he sustained. No matter what anyone's defense or argument is about drinking or driving or charter issues are at hand, I will NEVER find drinking and driving laws strict enough. Of all the topics I have commented on, I am most passionate about impaired drivers.

It appears that this officer has an axe to grind, he has a personal loss and is hardly unbiased. What are the chances that anyone is going to get the benefit of the doubt from someone who feels this way?

I know what some will say "if it gets one drunk driver off the road" or if it saves just one life it's worth it.

But our laws and society are based on the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Those roadside detection devices are not accurate enough for criminal charges so why should they be accurate enough to potentially ruin someone's life?
A 90 day suspension with no warning or lead time to prepare for could see someone potentially lose their jobs their homes and maybe their families....
All on the say so of a fallible machine and a cop who is on a mission?

Now that is an extreme result of the laws on the books and an example of why we need caution.

Btw this not meant as an attack on bike guy, I'm sure I would feel just as strongly in his position.

ukcanuck wrote:I have to apologize, I've been out of the country since this IRP controversy thing in 2010 and had no idea this law was on the books and its consequences so when I read this quote from bike guy it got right past me...

This year I believe I took 96 impaired drivers off the road. Yes a large amount of them were the controversial IRP's. I will not apologize for taking anyones licence due to drinking and driving because I know I made sure at least 96 people were not victims of an impaired driver.

Wow that's a lot of impaired drivers in one year. Should I wonder aloud if that's about average for one cop or is that a bit overly enthusiastic?

For anyone who says its not a problem, my father (who was also an RCMP officer) was hit by a drunk driving while on duty. He eventually died as a result of the injuries he sustained. No matter what anyone's defense or argument is about drinking or driving or charter issues are at hand, I will NEVER find drinking and driving laws strict enough. Of all the topics I have commented on, I am most passionate about impaired drivers.

It appears that this officer has an axe to grind, he has a personal loss and is hardly unbiased. What are the chances that anyone is going to get the benefit of the doubt from someone who feels this way?

I know what some will say "if it gets one drunk driver off the road" or if it saves just one life it's worth it.

But our laws and society are based on the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Those roadside detection devices are not accurate enough for criminal charges so why should they be accurate enough to potentially ruin someone's life?
A 90 day suspension with no warning or lead time to prepare for could see someone potentially lose their jobs their homes and maybe their families....
All on the say so of a fallible machine and a cop who is on a mission?

Now that is an extreme result of the laws on the books and an example of why we need caution.

Btw this not meant as an attack on bike guy, I'm sure I would feel just as strongly in his position.

I have absolutely nothing against getting impaired drivers off the road BUT, we must honor our Canadian system of justice.

Giving police the power to be witness, judge and jury because it is expeditious, speedy and convenient is WRONG.

Later this year it will include more Motor Vehicle Act offences.

They aren't being "Witness, Judge and Jury" or "Judge Jury and Executioner" as some have tried to coin it. If any thing they are "Witness" and "Process Server". They do not ultimately determine guilt (like a judge or jury would) and don't determine the sentence (as a judge would). They simply are making their observations while conducting investigations. They then serve the driver's with the appropriate documents as set out in legislation. The BC Supreme Court has determined that the IRP system (which does NOT apply in situations like this) DOES honor the "Canadian System of Justice".

As for the notion that bikeguy25 has somehow lost objectivity because someone he knows was seriously affected by a drunk driver: Who cares where his motivation comes from? No one I am close to has ever been seriously affected by a drunk driver but I am just as motivated to get as many as I can off the road. I have been to enough incidents where a drunk driver has seriously affected other innocent people that I have the same axe to grind. You can't go to collisions where a 10 year old boy was trapped and burned alive in a vehicle as the result of an Impaired driver and not be affected. It comes with the territory. I know that members who went to the collision that started this thread were seriously affected by what they dealt with and I'm sure it has hardened their resolve to take as many drunks off the road as they can. Maybe you think that I have lost my objectivity as well. But I am not out there to give impaired driver's the "benefit of the doubt". That benefit is given either by a judge (reasonable doubt) or an OSMV adjudicator (balance of probabilities). I don't even know how "benefit of the doubt" would apply to the job the police have. The only benefit of the doubt would come from an officer not going straight demand on the person because he or she isn't sure about exactly where on the impaired spectrum the driver is sitting. In these cases the ASD demand is made so an unbiased instrument can make that determination.

Wishful thinking but I hope you get them all!

Don't much care how either.

Rights, they have no rights when they decide to drive drunk!

This thread has turned into a "re birth" of the RCMP bar tactics thread........

ukcanuck wrote:Thats a good idea, then we could pull him out of the car and lay a beat down ant every stop light?
hey why not a registry so we could go to where he lives and torment him for his immorality too...

If you want to beat em once a D sticker was placed on their vehicle (if we could get that lucky) you be my guest...
The D would be a good way of making sure we could all spot em as actual Drunks if we see them weaving and decide to call them in... I am sure a cop would find more reason to pull them over,,, kinda like babysitting them due to their known behaviours while on our roads but beat them? I'd be against that,,, toss their drunken butt in the slammer for a night while they are processed for a life long loss of licence,,, if found in their D vehicle drunk,,, ya,,, absolutely. Bet they get in that car nice and sober once they know they are under a watchful eye of the cops and the public.
I like it, a big fat D,,, I also like the idea of a big fat "M" tatooed on the forhead of a molester and an "R" on the forehead of a rapest,,, Anyone who is out to hurt the public should have his vehicular assault machine tagged, be it his car or his own body.
If you want to avoid these markings then you dont commit the crime. Wishful thinking right now but it could be a possibility.