Page 21 of 28
Re: Random Breath tests
Posted: Jan 10th, 2019, 4:47 pm
by soupy
my5cents wrote:Neither did this grandfather (drink and drive), he was a passenger.
The risk/danger of this new criminal legislation is that in BC once the RSD test has been performed the police don't continue using the Criminal Code, where at least you are innocent until proven guilty. They use the MVA of BC, the Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) legislation they find the driver guilty at the curbside. Prohibitions from 3 days to 90 days, vehicle impoundment up to 30 days. Financially as high as $4000.
If you are going to say, "well if you don't drink and drive you've got nothing to worry about", consider the cops and their decisions that we've heard about.
-> Back and forth over the injured deer
-> Tests the pensioner because he saw him taking 2 doz empty beer bottles and 10 win bottles back to the store
-> (the grandfather) Cop didn't know the law, prohibited the DL for 90 days, seized the car for 30, plus fines etc grandpa did nothing wrong.
The Police in BC following the MVA is no change with the new rules.
Yes there are a few bad examples. I can provide one as well.
I had a family member (N driver) go through a Roadblock and ask to provide a breath sample.
The family member followed instructions and made several attempts to blow into the device and a reading was not registered into the device at anytime. (7-8 attempts)
Young family member did not know rules and at no time was a 2nd device was brought in or requested.
Family member immediately had car impounded and licence revoked. And was told to call a cab to get home.
Long story short. Did not have to pay any fees upon return of his car and licence revoke was reversed within days.
A week later same family member drove through a checkstop and same officer was salivating at the lips immediately as the officer recognized him and his car. She sure was surprised to run his licence and learn it was returned and car released.
Re: Random Breath tests
Posted: Jan 10th, 2019, 4:52 pm
by Fancy
countmeout wrote:It's amazing the mind's ability to be so bent on one subject i.e. removing impaired drivers off the road, that the mind chooses to ignore all the other possible negatives associated with pursuing the unjustified solution.
Remember though, my5cents, that using the deer example is "unsubstantiated"...
Oh bunk. Don't take what I said out of context and don't assume I'm ignoring possible negatives (never mind the obvious trolling).
I'm well aware of possibilities but bringing everything else into the discussion takes away from what is actually going to happen and what the police are actually doing.
Re: Random Breath tests
Posted: Jan 10th, 2019, 4:54 pm
by Fancy
countmeout wrote:The assumption that all police officers are some sort of super citizen incapable of human error, malicious intent and incorrect judgment is excessively naive.
Curious where that comes from.
Re: Random Breath tests
Posted: Jan 10th, 2019, 5:09 pm
by countmeout
Fancy wrote:countmeout wrote:It's amazing the mind's ability to be so bent on one subject i.e. removing impaired drivers off the road, that the mind chooses to ignore all the other possible negatives associated with pursuing the unjustified solution.
Remember though, my5cents, that using the deer example is "unsubstantiated"...
Oh bunk. Don't take what I said out of context and don't assume I'm ignoring possible negatives (never mind the obvious trolling).
I'm well aware of possibilities but bringing everything else into the discussion takes away from what is actually going to happen and what the police are actually doing.
Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument
I'm not looking for any kind of reaction nor am I fishing for a fight.
Your quoted info is not out of context. I've clearly outlined my interpretation and if my interpretation is wrong, please correct me, I have no issues to stand corrected. I'd gladly admit to any shortcomings.
takes away from what is actually going to happen and what the police are actually doing.
my5cents and I have laid out some pretty big issues with the law, showing how it will be abused and some examples of officers abusing power. This is how I draw the conclusion that I am against this MVA power to be the judge and jury right on the side of the road with no peer review. You, Fancy seem to like this new law and like Mordu believe the answer is zero tolerance, don't drink ever and you will be fine. I choose to believe this as true however there are less than admirable people on the police force as in all fields of work and I see this being a slippery slope for bad police to invoke unfair punishment.
Re: Random Breath tests
Posted: Jan 10th, 2019, 5:15 pm
by Fancy
I already corrected you. I've haven't said I liked the new law.
Re: Random Breath tests
Posted: Jan 10th, 2019, 5:16 pm
by countmeout
Fancy wrote:countmeout wrote:The assumption that all police officers are some sort of super citizen incapable of human error, malicious intent and incorrect judgment is excessively naive.
Curious where that comes from.
butcher99 wrote:If you are drinking and driving and fail a breath test or you are driving at excessive speeds then too bad. As for your police having a bad day, I guess they could just shoot you as well and say they felt threatened and drop a gun by your dead body but that does not happen either.
Don''t drink and drive and don't speed. No problems
Fancy wrote:Well police aren't intending to put you out of your misery (the deer had broken legs btw) but to get the people off the road that could put other people in misery. Big difference. Don't drink and drive. It's those drivers that drink and have killed and maimed others that have put police in this position.
Fancy wrote:countmeout wrote: I want drunks off the road as much as the next guy but it needs to go through the courts.
That's been tried - people are still getting killed by drunk drivers.
Essentially since you have no issue with this law and trust that police are not there to put us out of our misery (some do hand out tickets just to cause you misery) that we need to be all trusting and not drink, have zero tolerance and all will be okay. I see this is absolute trust in the police for probably stemming from never having a poor encounter with one. I encourage you to study all the examples posted about negative police stories and see if you still believe this power will never be abused. To take away right to a trial is just handing away our freedoms, sure only a few will be affected but don't kid yourself that this is for some greater good of the population.
Re: Random Breath tests
Posted: Jan 10th, 2019, 5:18 pm
by Fancy
You do like to twist things.
Re: Random Breath tests
Posted: Jan 10th, 2019, 5:26 pm
by countmeout
Fancy wrote:You do like to twist things.
Nothing is twisted? You and I disagree that this law needs to be removed. I show some reasons why, post some supporting articles and challenge your position on the issue.
Fancy wrote:I already corrected you. I've haven't said I liked the new law.
Then why defend this law? If you are against it like I am then why say things such as other methods have been tried and don't work? This implies that this new law is required to curb impaired driving.
All that is really required is stepping up frequency of roadside checks at all hours of the day and ticketing all impaired people from 0.00001 to 0.08 and removing all the people over 0.08 from the road. All tickets and violations go to court and are proven with evidence. This IRP isn't going to help get impaired people off the road unless road stops are increased, so all it's going to do is remove a few legal good drivers off the road with huge fines for when those bad apple police officers power trip.
Re: Random Breath tests
Posted: Jan 10th, 2019, 5:46 pm
by lesliepaul
Good to see MORE people engaging on this and seeing the real issue this so-called "goody two shoes" law has potentially done to all of us by removing OUR RIGHTS. I do not need some two bit "activist" Justice Minister (in for the pension) politician dreaming up
like this. Jody Wilson-Raybould is well educated but lazy has come to the forefront with this new law.
I wonder why she wants to remove our rights?...………...hmmmmmm!
2 Hour Breathalyzer
Posted: Jan 11th, 2019, 6:50 am
by Apak68
Is this really a new law... Global reported that police will be able to demand a Breathalyzer within 2 hours after you stopped driving... This can't be real
Re: 2 Hour Breathalyzer
Posted: Jan 11th, 2019, 8:38 am
by the truth
you mean this
https://globalnews.ca/video/4828305/new ... ing-powers crazy for sure, but i never drink and drive so i do not care, if it catches more drunks works for me, but yes i agree its a little over board , you can thank jt
Re: Random Breath tests
Posted: Jan 11th, 2019, 8:40 am
by Fancy
He described a scenario in which someone has gone home and watches a hockey game, enjoys a few beers, and gets a knock on the door from police, who received a tip about someone in the house who was driving a vehicle suspiciously.
“The person answers the door and they say, ‘Sir, we’ve had a complaint about your driving, we need you to provide a sample,” said Neuberger, noting if the person failed to provide the sample it would likely lead to arrest.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4832762/impa ... h-samples/
Re: 2 Hour Breathalyzer
Posted: Jan 11th, 2019, 8:40 am
by Fancy
Re: 2 Hour Breathalyzer
Posted: Jan 11th, 2019, 8:41 am
by gman313
Neither do I but as you say In other forums "I ask the tough questions."
I would think you would ask the question, so I drive home from work, someone is *bleep* off at me and knows I have a couple beer in the evening. So they call the cops and saying I was swerving all over the road. Cop shows up at your house, can enter without warrant, you deny him, you get arrested. You blow over the legal driving limit. off you go to jail, call your lawyer and try to prove you were not drinking and driving. Onus is on you. This is now guilt until proven innocent.
Absolutely wrong. Police state.
I think the portion of asking for a breathalyzer of any vehicle pulled over is totally acceptable.
Re: 2 Hour Breathalyzer
Posted: Jan 11th, 2019, 8:43 am
by the truth
agree 100%,,,, i guess if i have a drink within two hours of getting home i will record myself doing so