Castanet

You just don't get it Fancy.

I'm done debating this with you.

Oh I get it but this is old news too for some forces and steps are being taken to get it right - clerical errors happen especially when pushed and changes are made when discovered. Just too bad some of those drivers will probably be repeat offenders.

Fancy wrote:There was no indication the devices were actually out of calibration.

I know what you are saying.....just because the certificates were photocopied...has nothing to do with the calibration of the equipment. But here is what I am saying.

I'll use a car as an example. You walk up to a car that you want to buy....look inside and it is a complete mess.....garbage all over the place....stinks.....you name it. What would be your first thoughts about the rest of the car...the engine....tires....drive train.....do you think the rest of the car would be looked after better than the what appears inside? Probably not.... It would show a person not really caring for his vehicle.

Now, if a police officer tries to cut a corner (aka not follow procedure), all be it a minor one......just the fact that he/she does......may (notice I said "may")give an indication of how that officer feels about procedures in general. That is the point I am trying to make.

Procedures are there for a reason....

Agreed and I'm sure steps have been taken to ensure officers prepare their paperwork in good order so this doesn't happen again.

Fancy wrote:Agreed and I'm sure steps have been taken to ensure officers prepare their paperwork in good order so this doesn't happen again.

Agreed.

Fancy wrote:There was no indication the devices were actually out of calibration.

Oh I know, and I know that such devices get tested and calibrated far more often than is actually required to ensure accuracy. So the chances that the devices were out of wack by a significant margin is slim.

underscore wrote:
Oh I know, and I know that such devices get tested and calibrated far more often than is actually required to ensure accuracy. So the chances that the devices were out of wack by a significant margin is slim.

And, you know this how?

Fancy wrote:Agreed and I'm sure steps have been taken to ensure officers prepare their paperwork in good order so this doesn't happen again.

I'm starting to think you do get it.

I got it on the first page. I also took a look at the documents in question before responding.

simnut wrote: It's the technicalities that officers hate.....and in some cases...so do I. But, in some cases...it's those technicalities that are put into place to make sure everything is done right.....and if a technicality is in question, so would the whole case.

Well, this is a specific example of a technicality.

The point being, even if a certificate was properly completed suggesting that the device was calibrated, it still is unproven that it actually was. Apparently, an officer signing off that a device was calibrated is enough to tilt the burden of proof against the offender, so I could argue that any certificate stating that a device is tested, photocopied or not, would arguably symbolize the same thing.

abbyrugby wrote:There was no indication the devices were NOT actually out of calibration either.

Correct, but going back to the original certificate, nothing there proves that the devices aren't uncalibrated either.

Looking at the forms, all the entry spaces for a given day will be the same for every meter except for the service expiration date and the serial number. Why is it an issue that the officer completed all but those two areas and then copied the form?

simnut wrote:And, you know this how?

The manufacturer lists 31 days as the maximum time between accuracy checks, and that the accuracy checks must be within +/- 0.003. Being an important testing device, this 31 day interval should be significantly shorter than the worst case scenario that the manufacturer found during testing, to ensure accuracy. From the looks of the forms, the RCMP are testing them for accuracy every 28 days.

underscore wrote:Looking at the forms, all the entry spaces for a given day will be the same for every meter except for the service expiration date and the serial number. Why is it an issue that the officer completed all but those two areas and then copied the form?

It isn't......but not following procedure is....that is my point.

underscore wrote:The manufacturer lists 31 days as the maximum time between accuracy checks, and that the accuracy checks must be within +/- 0.003. Being an important testing device, this 31 day interval should be significantly shorter than the worst case scenario that the manufacturer found during testing, to ensure accuracy. From the looks of the forms, the RCMP are testing them for accuracy every 28 days.

Were you there when the devices were calibrated?

Any police mistakes can always be explained away or even denied .

The citizens who are caught when these failure of procedures occur seemed to be just unimportant pawns in the eyes of some people. Because they believe the police are the prosecutors.

That in itself is a steppingstone to anarchy.

i know a guy who walked after making two vegetables because of the machine being not calibrated ..

theyeti wrote:i know a guy who walked after making two vegetables because of the machine being not calibrated ..

Were you one of those vegetables cause that doesn't seem to make much sense?