Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9721
Reputation: 313.9Reputation: 313.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
RCO wrote:


ok everyone agree's that impaired driving is a problem but harassing people with breathalizer tests or face a criminal record for refusing them . is really over the top and seems to target the wrong people


I'm not sure how this mess will be figured out , its certain to face legal challenges but those could take years to make there way thru the courts . in the meantime , how many average Canadians are going to have to endure unfair breathalizer tests and criminal charges over this law


another case of what were the people in Ottawa thinking?


Is impaired driving such a big problem? First of all, they moved the goalposts on drunkenness once again. In the beginning, the law was made tough to deter drinking and driving. The test? Walking a straight line, touching one's nose, etc -- actual on-the-spot tests of coordination, etc. Then it evolved. Drunkenness became a number on a machine. It was set to go off at the level where there was the start of genuine impairment due to alcohol, much lower than previously (when drunk driving was a problem). But that number has been lowered again! A glass of white wine drunk an hour before leaving the reception can now be defined as "impaired".

What was it like before marijuan? Let me tell you ... I went to a big dance at the Brant Inn in the early 60ies. No alcohol officially. But the Inn served ice cubes, tonic water, water, ginger ale, potato chips, etc and every male in the place came with a 26-er of hard alcohol. Trust me, everyone who left that dance at 1 am was drunk as a lord, and several of them staggering drunk ... and they drove! That's what drinking in Ontario was like in the 1950ies.

How many people did the coppers pick up at the Christmas drinking season? Only a tad above 1000 in the whole of the year in the whole of the GTA. (That's millions of person/days, for the idiot's information). Over the Christmas-New Years drinking season, they only arrested 170! They say that was over the 'holiday season' -- say 15 days -- which would be about 11 a day! At a standard of impairment that is almost absurdly low.

Before marijuana, you could stop 20 cars and get 11 impaired drivers in the Christmas season. OK, maybe you'd have to stop a few more, the cops would have to see you weaving to stop you. They normally laid a "impaired driving" charge only after a drunk got in an accident. RIDE patrols came later.

I am older than you guys and I remember when drinking and driving was a genuine problem when there were half a dozen people being killed every 'holiday season' ... that plan was a success. This is overkill. Why can't the coppers be satisfied with this? Is it because trying to stop the real crime is too dangerous?



well true I don't think there has been any sort of increase locally in terms of impaired driving , in fact there seems to be less charges in the local papers than other years


there also seems to be less bars locally , perhaps more restaurants that serve alcohol but much less actual bars than there used to be


and the people that go to these places are pretty responsible , there is taxi services available in most areas


no I don't think there is a crisis locally in terms of impaired driving , certainly not one that would justify taking people's basic legal rights away and performing random breathalizer tests on people
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6373
Reputation: 299.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So ... what's the real reason? That's the thought that occurs.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 367
Reputation: 111.6
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A couple of points for clarification: Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to drink. If you can't wait three hours to have a drink, you have a problem.
Saying impaired driving is not a serious problem should ask the Van de Vorst family what they think. That was the family wiped out by an impaired driver in Saskatoon. And the fatalities since then. One impaired driver on the road is one too many.
Before I retired, part of my job was traffic enforcement and I have to say, when a driver shows signs of impairment, they are already too far gone to be driving safely. This new law will help remove those who do not present visible signs of impairment but who should not be driving.
What is the big deal about providing a breath sample. You stop, you blow and, if all is well, you are on your way, a little more confident that fewer other drivers are impaired enough to kill you or your kids.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6373
Reputation: 299.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who said "Driving is a privilege not a right?" That son-of-a-bitch ought to shot and pissed on.

I remember how you laughed off the violence in Saskatoon.

Is breathing a privilege or a right? After all, we exhale CO2 ... why should we allow that?

Is there anything that is not a privilege in your book, queenmandy? Where's the line in a country like ours? The Charter isn't something that restrains either the police or the courts for example. They do what they want. The police in our country are lawless, as you must know.

Is my life a privilege that Justin can withdraw at will? You call a prohibition a definition but define where the line is between a right to draw breath and the requirement to obey the state, please. Exactly where does my freedom end in Canada?
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 367
Reputation: 111.6
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't recall laughing off violence in Saskatoon.
The right vs privilege has come up several times while I was attending Court. I am not a lawyer but I would think anything requiring a licence is a privilege.
As a Peace Officer, I conducted myself with integrity. I cannot speak for others.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 367
Reputation: 111.6
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Who said "Driving is a privilege not a right?" The Charter isn't something that restrains either the police or the courts for example. They do what they want.
Is my life a privilege that Justin can withdraw at will? You call a prohibition a definition but define where the line is between a right to draw breath and the requirement to obey the state, please. Exactly where does my freedom end in Canada?


I know a lot of Police Officers who would disagree with that. A colleague of mine had reasonable grounds to search a vehicle for open beverage alcohol. He found a film cannister and opened it to find pot. He arrested the driver for possession. Because it was not reasonable to search for beverage alcohol in a film cannister, the charge was dropped and the officer was fired.
I don't recall calling a prohibition a definition. I don't know what you mean.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1358
Reputation: 125.5
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
A couple of points for clarification: Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Correct . It is definitely a privilege .
Quote:

Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to drink. If you can't wait three hours to have a drink, you have a problem.

And again, correct.

However, this is the part that infuriates most people. Why should I have to ? Im home, dinner is being made and I want to enjoy a glass or three of wine before and with my meal. So if a cop shows up and ask for a Breathalyzer why should anyone agree? Im home, the car is parked .
And to be frank, not all cops are decent nor honest. Some can and will fudge the time numbers to suit themselves.
Quote:
One impaired driver on the road is one too many.

Yes. But life is funny that way. We will always have (until driverless cars) some.

And not to shite on you per se, but the single worse subset of abusers of drinking and driving are cops.
That they can and do get away with it, historically at least, is a problem we all share. That does appear to be changing but has a long way to go.

In my job Ive had access to stats on HTA convictions for TPS members. The number for that 5000 people were astonishingly low. As in..WTF low.
I understand professional courtesy and all that, but the numbers went way beyond the pale.
Quote:
This new law will help remove those who do not present visible signs of impairment but who should not be driving.
What is the big deal about providing a breath sample. You stop, you blow and, if all is well, you are on your way, a little more confident that fewer other drivers are impaired enough to kill you or your kids.

The big deal is due to the fact that anyone on their way home from work for instance , driving prudently and safely is pulled over and asked for a sample. On what grounds? Because the cop felt like it?
And again, if at home with the car parked, what business is it of anyones to ask for a breath sample.


I wouldnt mind a little 4chan action on this. Every single cop on his way home , have a third party report to the police that so and so was driving erratically. See how many get followed up. It may work because cops in big cities never live in the same city thus it would be another police force making the visit.
Then lets look at the stats. Any guess what you would find vs the avg citizen?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1358
Reputation: 125.5
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So ... what's the real reason? That's the thought that occurs.

Ireland for one.
40 other countries who have the same law as we have now.

Ireland, reduction by 40% of road deaths within 4 years of the law coming into effect.
https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/breath-test-can-t-be-refused-under-new-drunk-driving-law-1.23355573



Bugs wrote:
Who said "Driving is a privilege not a right?" That son-of-a-bitch ought to shot and pissed on.

Versus..
Quote:

Is breathing a privilege or a right? After all, we exhale CO2 ... why should we allow that?

Um....one can live perfectly fine without driving.

The other....not so much.

Wonderful comparison, the best, beautiful. LOL!

Quote:
The Charter isn't something that restrains either the police or the courts for example. They do what they want.

Patently untrue, but the former criminal charge you must have had still resonates in your head does i?
Quote:

Exactly where does my freedom end in Canada?

At the end of your fist and the start of another nose.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6373
Reputation: 299.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
Bugs wrote:
Who said "Driving is a privilege not a right?" The Charter isn't something that restrains either the police or the courts for example. They do what they want.
Is my life a privilege that Justin can withdraw at will? You call a prohibition a definition but define where the line is between a right to draw breath and the requirement to obey the state, please. Exactly where does my freedom end in Canada?


I know a lot of Police Officers who would disagree with that. A colleague of mine had reasonable grounds to search a vehicle for open beverage alcohol. He found a film cannister and opened it to find pot. He arrested the driver for possession. Because it was not reasonable to search for beverage alcohol in a film cannister, the charge was dropped and the officer was fired.
I don't recall calling a prohibition a definition. I don't know what you mean.


The rot starts at the top in big organizations. Usually. Especially in police departments which, as you must know, are as political as any institution you can imagine.

The way a license works is this. An activity that was once something that was everybody's right -- say, making beer -- is proclaimed to be illegal, and then then some people are allowed to break that law with impunity. Often they share the booty with the government. That's why it's called a "license" as in sexual license.

That's what they did when radio was young, as an example. Once, a radio station was something anybody could start, just like now anybody can set up a website. Then that was made illegal, and those favoured by the party in power got licenses to broadcast, providing they maintained the good favour of the government. Now the CBC is shameless propaganda. (Remember Little Mosque on the Prairie which was actually an insult to people like you.) They're doing the same thing now with marijuana. They never legalized it, they cartelized it in the hands of those favoured by government. (But who expects the government to tell the truth?)

That's how it works. They take our freedom away from us, at a practical level, and give it to their children and supporters, and extract money from us. Elizabeth I gave licenses to pirates and slave-traders, and that became part of the Royal wealth. Of course they lie to us about it because they know it's shameful.

Ask someone familiar with the law, and they will confirm what I say, without the actual historical illustrations. Because ... you know ... lawyers also have licenses.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 367
Reputation: 111.6
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sorry, but I am incapable of being that cynical. Yes, there are bad police officers. I've had 2 RCMP officers ask me to cancel a ticket in 25 years. There are also bad plumbers, doctors, preists and film producers. But most people are good people.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6373
Reputation: 299.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are reacting to the wrong thing. I made the point early that the rot starts at the top. The police used to be charged with maintaining peace and order in public space. The did it mostly be showing the uniform -- that is, walking a beat in shopping areas, etc. They don't do that anymore, as you may know. They sit in their cars. A few years ago, a 17 year was killed from a stray bullet from a gunfight at Yonge & Dundas in Toronto -- on Boxing Day, possibly the biggest shopping day of the year. The police took over 20 minutes to respond because ... you know ... they might get hurt.

And they hire on the basis of skin colour and genitals.

But the uniformed cops are only half the police force. It's the plain-clothes cops that commit most of the abuses. Are you including them in the picture? Their techniques aren't that different from the thugs. For the most part, they don't do investigations -- they make small arrests over trivial events and offer 'deals' for information, or to entice others into "crimes". Why do you think there are so many murders amongst druggies? It's because people have "patched" their crimes by setting up someone else -- further up the chain, as they say -- . That might be as much as third of the murders in Toronto -- police caused.

This is police at work ... in Toronto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNJFQ5w7kfg They clearly are resentful of public scrutiny. Why, if they're not hiding something?

In Toronto, the coppers have a "union hall" where they have stags and parties, run porn videos and drive home drunk -- regularly, under what cops call "diplomatic immunity" ie the confidence that other police won't arrest them.

But the crowns are worse. I don't say these things without reason. and there are differences in different municipalities. Toronto's police suck, but Hamilton's are marginally better. My impression is, the smaller the municipality, the more likely the policing will be decent.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 367
Reputation: 111.6
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know anything about the Police in Ontario so it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
You still haven't refreshed my memory regarding "laughing off violence in Saskatoon."
As for the topic, how would you suggest we eliminate impaired driving? I suspect a lot more people are killed due to impaired driving than by terrorists or murders.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6373
Reputation: 299.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I probably mischaracterized it. I posted an article that was -- at least in my crazy eyes -- and you said it was nothing compared to bar fight in Saskatoon, or something like that. Struck me as insensitive, that's all.

I can understand that being a cop on the job can be tough. It might be tougher in Saskatoon than many places, and I feel I should thank you for that. My finger-pointing is directed more at the policy-makers, the Crowns and the judiciary than at the ordinary policeman.

What do you think when they keep a man in jail for six years awaiting his trial for murder? In a country that offers a constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial? When the reason is that they don't have enough evidence to convict? All motived by a politically? What am I supposed to think of that? (And that wasn't Ontario.)

Or how about Mayerthorpe, where a whole detachment of RCMP was at the perp's farm at midnight without any paperwork. What were they going to do? Interesting question that none of our reporters bothered to ask about. Two guys went to jail for 8 years each for something they didn't do, and didn't know anything about at the time. Those things can't happen without the bosses knowing.

Or more currently ...

Quote:
EXCLUSIVE: Crown mistakenly exposed police informant, killing massive B.C. money laundering probe
By Sam Cooper National Online Journalist, Investigative Global News

A massive RCMP investigation of alleged underground bankers in Richmond, B.C., estimated to be laundering over $1 billion per year collapsed in November because federal prosecutors mistakenly exposed the identity of a police informant who they feared could have been killed if the case proceeded, Global News has learned. [....]
https://globalnews.ca/news/4816822/exclusive-epirate-crown-exposing-police-informant-killed-b-c-money-laundering-probe/


Those are the kinds of things that I observe and draw conclusions about. I don't think this is an accident, sorry ... more likely corruption.

I think you are a gentleman, whatever else, and don't mean to imply that the uniformed police are responsible for any of it.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 367
Reputation: 111.6
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for that. You make some valid points. A big problem with police work is developing tunnel vision. It is vital to keep an open mind, gather evidence impartially and see where it leads. It is not as easy as it looks. The characteristics that make a good police officer also make a good accountant. Unfortunately, the people who are drawn to police work are sometimes influenced by TV shows.
The problems with the courts is taxpayers do not support them with financial support. We don't have enough judges, crown attorneys, or (God forgive me for saying this) lawyers.
I tend to have a dim view of the RCMP yet the second best cop I ever knew was a sargeant in the RCMP.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1358
Reputation: 125.5
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

The rot starts at the top in big organizations. Usually. Especially in police departments which, as you must know, are as political as any institution you can imagine.

Of dubious merit, but otherwise not important .
Quote:


The way a license works is this. An activity that was once something that was everybody's right -- say, making beer -- is proclaimed to be illegal, and then then some people are allowed to break that law with impunity. Often they share the booty with the government. That's why it's called a "license" as in sexual license.

Skewed posting designed to reflect some point or another.

Anyhow, private beer making was never illegal. Perhaps in the Tang Dynasty back in 669 .

Further, the licence was only for commercial selling breweries. One could always make beer at home except for a small time during prohibition.

So? No point made.
Quote:

That's what they did when radio was young, as an example. Once, a radio station was something anybody could start, just like now anybody can set up a website. Then that was made illegal, and those favoured by the party in power got licenses to broadcast, providing they maintained the good favour of the government.

I really dont want to slag your posts, its getting tiresome, but when you try to make a point with what can only be construed as bullshit then what is one to do?

You make it sound like radio was freewheeling and there were all sorts of folks involved.
Poppycock.

Radio in Canada started with the transatlantic reception from overseas at Newfoundland.

The year 1901 .

The first station?

1902.

The first Wireless Telegraph Act came to be in 1905.

So what you have said is 'like lots of folks were into radio and making their own but the govt harshed their buzz man"

Nope. Not even close. Who could afford it, who would work it and for what reason if NO ONE could hear them.

So there were legions of Canucks doing radio but no one could listen. Yikes! Skewed model that is.

So, next time one of your old timey goofy small town feels are lurking to emerge, resist the temptation.
Either that or do some f*****g homework so you dont shoot yourself in the foot.





Quote:
They never legalized it, they cartelized it in the hands of those favoured by government. (But who expects the government to tell the truth?)

Since I as a private person can grow it, and I as a private person can open a store and seek a licence, pleeeeeaaaase explain to the gentle reader (LOL!) how your words could possibly ever be true ?

Side note: But who expects the government to tell the truth? Should be "But who expects the impoverished and embarrassed poster to tell the truth?


Quote:

That's how it works.

Nope. Only in your fantasy world. In the real world? Nope.


Quote:

Ask someone familiar with the law, and they will confirm what I say, without the actual[b] historical[/b] illustrations. Because ... you know ... lawyers also have licenses.


Yes, please do that and learn that most of this referenced post is pure bullshit.

By the way, you spelled hysterical wrong.

LOL!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Do the new Impaired Driving laws go to far ?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB