17 drunk driving cases tossed because of police.

[simnut]

And again, that is the time be honest with your answers to the nice police officer.

As opposed to lie to the "not" so nice police officer?

Sorry...had to say that.......

[zzontar]

And again, that is the time be honest with your answers to the nice police officer's questions.

Telling the truth when there's nothing to hide seemed like a good idea. In hindsight it was a bad idea, especially with an overzealous cop who's NOT nice and doesn't know proper procedure. Live and learn.

[Donald G]

Another example of the situation that has evolved as a result of the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights being replaced by the far left (extremist) Trudeau government Bill of Rights of the 1970's ... and subsequent judicial INTERPRETATION of the Trudeau charter by judges specifically picked and appointed by the Federal Liberals to strip the police of a significant amount of their investigational authority. The new interpretation of the charter as to what constitutes search and seizure, unreasonable detention and what brings the system of justice into disrepute have proven to be a goldmine for criminals ant their attorneys in our criminal courts. The resulting inability of the police to stop and search vehicles for drunk drivers, drugs, stolen property and evidence of many other illegal acts is notorious for letting the guilty go free. That new interpretation also enables about 1,250 innocent men, women and children to be killed by drunk drivers each year across Canada ... because the police can only stop and check vehicles when certain stringent conditions have been met. The largest heroin seizure ever made in Saskatchewan and one of the largest gang associated loaded firearm caches ever seized in B.C. were dismissed because the judge found that the police did not have the right to search the trunk of a vehicle they had stopped. In my opinion our criminal courts have gone far overboard in their effort to protect Canadian Citizens from police wrong doing ... the criminals and criminal gangs continue to be the big winners. Society is forced to live with the resulting injustice.

[Graphite]

17 tossed because of police? How many were CAUGHT because of police? Give your heads a shake.

[simnut]

17 tossed because of police? How many were CAUGHT because of police? Give your heads a shake.

That's not the issue, is it? If those 17 drivers have a valid point to dispute the "allegations", and no where to go to get that corrected.....THAT is the issue!!!!!

[Donald G]

The legal presentations made by defence lawyers and resulting judicial decisions made by criminal court judges since roadside testing devices were brought into being reveal their obvious intention to negate the ability of the police to enforce the legislation through the use of legal decisions in which the Canadian people are unable to participate. Just as they did with the previous impaired, over .08 and drunk driving legislation under the Criminal Code. Their ongoing efforts to justify 1,250 innocent men, women and children being killed by drunk drivers across Canada each year (in the name of enforcing our 'rights of drunk drivers to escape detection' is borders on itself being considered a criminal act. A continuing example of our legal system permitting ongoing crimes against humanity in the name of freedom.

[Donald G]

In no way can it be successfully argued that the readings made at the time were inaccurate or that every one of the drivers did not have the right to a second roadside test. I for one am becoming fed up with the type of legal and judicial stupidity upon which this issued was successfully argued. When a search for truth regarding actual guilt or innocence becomes a bystander in the trial process the result will reflect the result of a debate in theoretical law rather than true guilt or innocence. I fully agree with the illustrious Mr Greenspan and our last Canadian Governor General that Canadian Legal System is failing the Canadian people.

[KL3-Something]

17 tossed because of police? How many were CAUGHT because of police? Give your heads a shake.

That's not the issue, is it? If those 17 drivers have a valid point to dispute the "allegations", and no where to go to get that corrected.....THAT is the issue!!!!!

So, if that is the case, how did those get "tossed" then?

[simnut]

So, if that is the case, how did those get "tossed" then?

Doroshenko said his office first argued the point last fall in front of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and lost, but got the attention of the lawyers at the provincial Ministry of Justice after filing a petition to appeal in B.C. Supreme Court.

Yes those cases did get tossed....but look at the timeline......after the fact. Did those 17 drivers serve their 90 day suspension? Yes, along with all the other "red tape" and personal hassle that goes with it. The drivers were made to serve the suspension...now the government goes...."Oooops,sorry.......here...let's take that off your record." How does the government pay back the 90 day suspension? So it's not really being able to get it corrected before the proverbial axe falls, is it?

[Donald G]

Another one of the absolutely ridiculous decisions handed down by our criminal court stooges ... that have absolutely nothing to do with guilt or innocence and everything to do with judicial stupidity being used to cause and justify the deaths of about 1,250 innocent fathers, mothers and children across Canada each year. Crimes against humanity in the name of freedom is also a regularly used tactic of dictators in third world countries to justify their decisions.

[jerome2877]

Another one of the absolutely ridiculous decisions handed down by our criminal court stooges ... that have absolutely nothing to do with guilt or innocence and everything to do with judicial stupidity being used to cause and justify the deaths of about 1,250 innocent fathers, mothers and children across Canada each year. Crimes against humanity in the name of freedom is also a regularly used tactic of dictators in third world countries to justify their decisions.

You didn't think that through did ya? What dictators commit crimes against humanity in the name of FREEDOM? As far as I know a dictator is about as far as you can get from freedom lmao!!

Court stooges? It says the superintendent of motor vehicles overturned the cases due to the devices not being reliable. It was the police that failed to do their job properly that caused this not the courts! It has everything to do with guilt or inncocence if the device used to punish you is unreliable!! As far as justifying deaths, your just ridiculous with that statement!!

[Donald G]

To jerome2877 ...

Political history as it relates to the takeover of governments is not your forte is it? ... especially when supported by 'democratic' third party countries by way of pseudo elections in the initial instance. Or freedom to practice a given religion in the mideast?

[jerome2877]

To jerome2877 ...

Political history as it relates to the takeover of governments is not your forte is it? ... especially when supported by 'democratic' third party countries by way of pseudo elections in the initial instance. Or freedom to practice a given religion in the mideast?

You said Dictator, defined as.."a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession."

When has a "dictator" commited crimes against humanity in the name of freedom?

[Donald G]

To jerome2877....

The U.S.A., primarily through the CIA, spends has spent millions of dollars over the years supporting politicians in a number of countries who have gone onto become dictators. Freedom of religion and freedom from poverty are two of the predominant themes that has been interpreted in a way to garner votes. Once elected the rules change. Saudi Arabia, Morsi in Egypt, Venezeula and MAssadegh in Iran were or remain current examples. WIth respect.

Research Dictators who were elected and the role of the CIA in electing world governments for starters ... An interesting trend to say the least.

[Jo]

Let's veer back on topic now.