B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned

[Katfish1]

your the expert I guess....but you are WRONG in this case....
why is their no actual number of what he blew on the ticket? why was it shown only off the record??
I don't care what you think really....
also, blowing 0.08 is a criminal charge, which he did not get. IF he blew over that he would have a criminal charge....

They don't write your speed on a speeding ticket. Why should they write your BAL on an impaired ticket?

Still wondering why you didn't drive that night instead of him.

Sorry I did answer you, but I don't see my reply...
I don't know why I didn't drive...he had like 4 beer in 4 hours....didn't consider him impaired I guess....
hindsight is 20 20
I have seen speed on a speeding ticket....

[toughnut]

Katfish Listen please.Its not what I think ok Its what I know
Go to the icbc site and read for yourself
Its very clear what the rules are;
Summary of impaired driving consequences
Consequences
Warn range (.05 – .08)
Third warn in Five years will result in what happened to your boyfriend so u best ask him to man up and tell u the truth

Heres the link.Read it and weep:
http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/ti ... /immediate

[toughnut]

tell u another thing also.4 -12 oz beer in Four complete hours all spaced at one beer for each hour will not give a BAR of .07

[Katfish1]

Katfish Listen please.Its not what I think ok Its what I know
Go to the icbc site and read for yourself
Its very clear what the rules are;
Summary of impaired driving consequences
Consequences
Warn range (.05 – .08)
Third warn in Five years will result in what happened to your boyfriend so u best ask him to man up and tell u the truth

Heres the link.Read it and weep:
http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/ti ... /immediate

ok know it all....
I don't care what you KNOW....
because also from what I know, things are not always the way they are supposed to be, cops are not supposed to kick people in the face, they do.
but you go ahead and KNOW that because ICBC or the cops say something, it must be true.

[toughnut]

Katfish? Relax.Your not the first person that another person lied to.Your boyfriend lied to you and you beleived him.
its not the end of the world.All I ever tryed to point out to you was that it did not happen in the way you claim.Once you come to grips with that you will be fine.The reason I even bothered to reply is because it bothers me when people post things that
are not true and I want to set the record straight.Your free to beleive what you want but please beleive that you are dead wrong in this case.End of story

[bigralso]

Should make these judges ride with the coroners when they are called out to accidents involving alcohol .( usually not a pretty sight ) Then they can maybe think very seriously about the consequences of changes in the law.

[Glacier]

Judges don't change the law; they make sure that politicians follow the law.

[Libelle]

If I'm losing my car and license for 90 days - it is not a "administrative punishment".

I should be charged in court and have the ability to defend myself.The polices job is to bring you to court, not to pass judgment. "Mood of the police officer" should not be a factor in the justice system.

When they start cracking down on lack-of-sleep, I will buy the 0.05 argument that 0.05 drivers are killing people.

Hopefully they tweak this to reflect my opinions.

Defend yourself? How can you do that? When you know that you were drinking and should have not gotten into the car and drove. It is a yes or no. IMO there would be nothing that you could say to defend yourself if you made the CHOICE to drink and then drive.

[Rwede]

If I'm losing my car and license for 90 days - it is not a "administrative punishment".

I should be charged in court and have the ability to defend myself.The polices job is to bring you to court, not to pass judgment. "Mood of the police officer" should not be a factor in the justice system.

When they start cracking down on lack-of-sleep, I will buy the 0.05 argument that 0.05 drivers are killing people.

Hopefully they tweak this to reflect my opinions.

Defend yourself? How can you do that? When you know that you were drinking and should have not gotten into the car and drove. It is a yes or no. IMO there would be nothing that you could say to defend yourself if you made the CHOICE to drink and then drive.

Gotta agree with that. Poor choices are indefensible in a black and white scenario.

[grumpydigger]

Sigurdson ruled the less-severe fines, driving prohibitions and penalties associated with blowing in the blood alcohol warning range between .05 and .08 are also unconstitutional, but justified. http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loca ... lumbiaHome

This comment from the CTV link It's hard to understand

If something is unconstitutional and against our rights and freedoms why should it be justified

[Bagotricks]

Defend yourself? How can you do that? When you know that you were drinking and should have not gotten into the car and drove. It is a yes or no. IMO there would be nothing that you could say to defend yourself if you made the CHOICE to drink and then drive.

Breathalyzers fail and malfunction. Police make mistakes. Rights and procedures are side-stepped and violated.

Everyone that is charged with a crime is guilty, really?

...that is why we have courts.

[Libelle]

Sigurdson ruled the less-severe fines, driving prohibitions and penalties associated with blowing in the blood alcohol warning range between .05 and .08 are also unconstitutional, but justified. http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loca ... lumbiaHome

This comment from the CTV link It's hard to understand

If something is unconstitutional and against our rights and freedoms why should it be justified

Our rights? What about our rights not to worry about someone drunk on the road when we are out? Again there is no way for someone to defend themself when they have driven drunk and was caught!

[Bagotricks]

Again there is no way for someone to defend themself when they have driven drunk and was caught!

The police do not have the ability to be police, judge and deal out punishment in one swoop. That is why this new law was ruled to be against the Charter. There are clear, sound reasons to have a separation and independent systems of police and courts.

If I arrest someone for murder, even if they have blood on their hands - they still go to court. Now why is that?

Please inform us Castaneters why people shouldn't go to court, and name some countries that have a legal system like you are suggesting and tell everyone how awesome it is to be under such a system.

I have no problem with tougher laws for drinking and driving. But if you want to punish me, you have to take me to court.

Imagine if they made "murder" a administrative issue?

[Libelle]

I did not say that they do not have a right to go to court. But IMO there is no way that they will be able to defend themselves. Either they drove drunk or didn't. Simple.

[Urbane]

At first reading the judge's decision makes sense to me. He upheld the right of authorities to suspend a licence for up to seven days and to take a car off the road if the driver is thought to be impaired. He also ruled that the province does have the right to take such actions against those who blow a .05 to .08 reading even though the federal law prohibits driving at .08 and above because the province does in fact licence drivers. So now there will be an appeals process for those who blow .08 but they can be taken off the road immediately. Maybe I'm missing something but it seems as if the overall intent of the law is protected and drinking and driving injuries and deaths should continue to be down from the old days.