B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned

[Smurf]

Does that mean you're stopping all the idiotic scenerios that have never happened?

[zzontar]

You obviously missed the point of an example too, Smurf. Let me explain it one more time although I doubt you'll get it either. NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAD IN YOUR FAVOR TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE, IT WOULD BE ALL DISREGARDED IN AN APPEAL AS LONG AS IT WAS PROVEN THAT YOU WERE THE ONE DRIVING AND THE COP SAYS YOU BLEW A "WARN."

[KL3-Something]

You obviously missed the point of an example too, Smurf. Let me explain it one more time although I doubt you'll get it either. NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAD IN YOUR FAVOR TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE, IT WOULD BE ALL DISREGARDED IN AN APPEAL AS LONG AS IT WAS PROVEN THAT YOU WERE THE ONE DRIVING AND THE COP SAYS YOU BLEW A "WARN."

Or a "fail".

[simnut]

It may be "harder" but that is a lot different than not being able to at all.

Have you ever had dealings with the OSMV?

[Smurf]

Never in 50 plus years of driving and I don't plan on starting now.

No I don't get it because I don't see any sense and certainly not any proof in your scenerios.

[goatboy]

You obviously missed the point of an example too, Smurf. Let me explain it one more time although I doubt you'll get it either. NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAD IN YOUR FAVOR TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE, IT WOULD BE ALL DISREGARDED IN AN APPEAL AS LONG AS IT WAS PROVEN THAT YOU WERE THE ONE DRIVING AND THE COP SAYS YOU BLEW A "WARN."

Scenario: You're flying along on a Westjet flight at 35,000 ft. All of a sudden, a door blows off. You get sucked out the airplane and fall to your death. HOWEVER, if you had a parachute on, you would have survived. Now, do we make everyone wear parachutes in case this happens? No we don't, because the likely hood of this "scenario" ever happening is slim to none. It COULD happen, but we don't plan for that "scenario" because there are fail safes and checks in place that make the likely hood of it happening outweigh the actions that would need happen to completely rule out someone dying from that "scenario".

So while your "scenario" is and example of a possible outcome, so is the one above, yet they are both completely unlikely to happen. Now, if you could provide some fact bases, real life events that have actually been proven to have happened, that would have more meaning than your "what ifs".

[simnut]

Never in 50 plus years of driving and I don't plan on starting now.

Don't count on that as a for sure thing. All it will take is an officer to charge you with something you DIDN'T do....something you can't control. Once you have dealt with the OSMV for a "proper" appeal for a "proper" error by an officer......you will understand what some are saying.

[goatboy]

Don't count on that as a for sure thing. All it will take is an officer to charge you with something you DIDN'T do....something you can't control. Once you have dealt with the OSMV for a "proper" appeal for a "proper" error by an officer......you will understand what some are saying.

Pretty close to a sure thing. Probably just as likely to get hit by lightening. I hear that stings too.

[simnut]

Pretty close to a sure thing. Probably just as likely to get hit by lightening. I hear that stings too.

Pretty close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.... :D

[Trunk-Monkey]

You obviously missed the point of an example too, Smurf. Let me explain it one more time although I doubt you'll get it either. NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAD IN YOUR FAVOR TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE, IT WOULD BE ALL DISREGARDED IN AN APPEAL AS LONG AS IT WAS PROVEN THAT YOU WERE THE ONE DRIVING AND THE COP SAYS YOU BLEW A "WARN."

Or a fail....yup. AND????

[jerome2877]

Trunk-Monkey » Today, 5:58 pm

Or a fail....yup. AND????

And the cop could lie and the video evidence that could prove what really happened cannot be subpoenaed and used in the appeal. How about the cop who blew into an ASD and it read fail when he had not had a drink? He's not lieing, if he says the device read fail but is the person still guilty? As far as the OSMV is concerned absolutley guilty!

[zzontar]

How about the person who blew into that one prior to the cop blowing into it? Of course it would have given an accurate reading then. :127: Obviously it is possible for a "fail" to have occured then, and the poor person would have been found guilty in the appeal process.

[zzontar]

Never in 50 plus years of driving and I don't plan on starting now.

No I don't get it because I don't see any sense and certainly not any proof in your scenerios.

The proof in the scenario is proof the system was flawed as an innocent person would easily be charged as guilty. Hopefully you can see that by now.

[Trunk-Monkey]

And the cop could lie...

With that theory...why don't we take all of the cops powers away...I mean after all they swore an oath and all that jazz..

How about the cop who blew into an ASD and it read fail when he had not had a drink?

Already asked and answered.....do some research...educate yourself on the subject...or let me....
If the ASD is maintained and calibrated it is an accurate approved instrument. Deal with it...

.......As far as the OSMV is concerned absolutley guilty!

Well dont blame or take anything away from the cops because of what the OSMV may or may not due....

[zzontar]

Already asked and answered.....do some research...educate yourself on the subject...or let me....
If the ASD is maintained and calibrated it is an accurate approved instrument. Deal with it...


.

I must have missed it, how can a maintained and calibrated instrument suddenly register a "fail" for someone sober?