Castanet

I will agree that it's good that he got what he "Legally" should get, but I sure am happy that we were not forced to rehire him!!!! So I guess we all should be happy to get rid of him for good now.

johnrae wrote:I will agree that it's good that he got what he "Legally" should get, but I sure am happy that we were not forced to rehire him!!!! So I guess we all should be happy to get rid of him for good now.

I don't believe in gloating over someone's misfortunes. You don't even understand there was no expectation to rehire him. When the Chief and others went to bat for him because of his exemplary career, I think that speaks volumes.

" Why else would you say he still thinks it's okay to drink and drive. I'm sure you have proof of that."

"he says he drank 12 ounces of wine, half an ounce of liqueur, half an ounce of rum and 36 ounces of beer over dinner"

I know he thinks it is ok, as this is what he said he drank that night. I don't who you hang out with, but I can honestly say none of my friends would drive after all that booze???

That's 3 beer, 1/2 bottle of wine and two shooters. It didn't sound as bad when he said ounces.

I didn't ask about what he had to drink that night 4 and a half years ago. I asked why you think he STILL thinks it's okay to drink and drive. Same question to KK69.

did you read the part where he lied to the Chief and told him he only received a 24 hr suspension ?? he apparently felt his actions of lying, speeding, driving impaired in a tax payer's vehicle that got impounded for 30 days was just a "mistake" and he deserved 18 mths severance pay for it...think the only one who's gloating is him because he received $42K and his lawyer bill paid for..

I'm surprised that he didn't ask for the impound fees and the points on his license to be paid for by the tax payers...I mean tax payers should just accept crap like this without saying a word cause it was only a "mistake" and he was a great employee...

drinking and driving is NEVER a mistake, it's a personal decision that can kill innocent people...don't do it, not even once !!!

If I was taxpaying resident of West Kelowna I wouldn't want a member of the first responders (police, firefighters or BCAS), to totally disregard drinking & driving laws in there personal lifes.

On or off duty (impo) if you are behind wheel of a police, fire or ambulance registered vehicle. You had better not have been drinking or anything else that causes impairment.

I don't believe in gloating over someone's misfortunes

Really ? " Misfortune" ??

Sounds like a crappy conscious decision to me .
Buddy should be biotch slapped all over the fire hall IMO ..,.

On or off duty (impo) if you are behind wheel of a police, fire or ambulance registered vehicle. You had better not have been drinking or anything else that causes impairment.

If this turnip were a cab driver behind the wheel of a company vehicle , I can imagine the out rage ...

If you think your cab driver isn't impaired. Think again.

GordonH wrote:If I was taxpaying resident of West Kelowna I wouldn't want a member of the first responders (police, firefighters or BCAS), to totally disregard drinking & driving laws in there personal lifes.

On or off duty (impo) if you are behind wheel of a police, fire or ambulance registered vehicle. You had better not have been drinking or anything else that causes impairment.

The officer who stopped him, stated on the TV news today that the Asst. Chief blew twice; and over 1.0; which is in allowable range for an Impaired Driving (a criminal offence). I understand that the police don't like to charge folks this way in every case over .08 as it takes a lot of time to process these people; a 90 day suspension is easier and quicker. So what? Bring in extra staff if necessary; get these people off the roads with a higher deterrent.

Anyone who has a criminal record has their future liberties cut drastically. Try getting into the U.S. for instance with a record (yes, a conviction over .08 means a criminal record). It would help "deter" folks from drinking and driving if the possibility of becoming a criminal was higher.

^^^ I agree, I would prefer everyone that blows .05 or higher to be charge under criminal code (criminal code BAC in my opinion should be lowered) and have their day in court.
This means the RCMP would need to do their due diligence & get a conviction in court, if done properly should result in 100% convictions (or as close to that number).

Added: I'd prefer zero BAC tolerances

logman wrote:If you think your cab driver isn't impaired. Think again.

What are you sayin ? That ALL cabbies are impaired ?? Because you "think so " ???

Wow man . Just . wow .

That just one assistant chief WAS proven to be impaired while operating a department vehicles is somehow OK and he gets a judgement like this is just . plain . BAD .

MAPearce wrote:
What are you sayin ? That ALL cabbies are impaired ??

If you see the way they drive it sure seems like it ...

logman wrote:If you think your cab driver isn't impaired. Think again.

Most of the ones I encounter on the roads around Kelowna certainly appear to be.

removed.

pentona wrote:
The officer who stopped him, stated on the TV news today that the Asst. Chief blew twice; and over 1.0; which is in allowable range for an Impaired Driving (a criminal offence). I understand that the police don't like to charge folks this way in every case over .08 as it takes a lot of time to process these people; a 90 day suspension is easier and quicker. So what? Bring in extra staff if necessary; get these people off the roads with a higher deterrent.

Anyone who has a criminal record has their future liberties cut drastically. Try getting into the U.S. for instance with a record (yes, a conviction over .08 means a criminal record). It would help "deter" folks from drinking and driving if the possibility of becoming a criminal was higher.

AS I understand it this isn't even remotely how it works. You are tested with a pass/warn/fail machine or an actual BAC machine. BAC machine = arrest and official testing at station, the pass/warn/fail does not give an actual BAC but also has no court or recourse involved and you are convicted roadside and given the probation.

ANY claimed BAC is then ONLY an assumed amount and not always accurate.

From this instance he blew a pass/warn/fail machine not the other, and therefore the BAC is not known as you claim.

Many people have been suspended by these machines and they have made a difference I think, however they are not a grounds for termination on their own. Court is court, not opinion court or morality court, and what little court he was afforded was a fine and 90 day driving suspension. A ruined life was not to be the sentence until someone else outside of that system decided it to be one, that created the case.

I will be interested to see the final outcome.

(edit: I say final as I half expect some appeal)