Sign in to follow this  
RUPERTKBD

Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars, at home

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

No, but we can at least prosecute them now.

 

Like I said above I prefer a zero-tolerance law instead. Nice bright line there, no confusion. And totally justified. There's no reason that you need to drink or get high and drive, even in moderation. 

 

I'll drink to that!  :towel:

If we expect people to be responsible and not drink and drive, why do pubs have parking lots?  

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

there's me assuming again, I thought Phils comment was in the context of drunk driving. 

Yeah, wouldn't make much sense if it wasn't as I know plenty of people in small towns who frequently don't carry their license.

4 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

"they didn't come for me, so I said nothing"!  

 

Despots love people who think like you do.  

The click bait media loves people who think like you do. 

 

They know that outrage drives clicks and people like you are always searching for something to be outraged about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

People aren't idiots Jimmy, we know what the law is 'trying' to do.

 

Nobody's against stopping wastes of skin from killing people and using this method of defense.

 

We're against the vast overstepping of law and diminished rights for the many in the name of stopping a minute number of criminals. It's not ok.

 

Red Herring.

 

We should be fighting to get  more of those back, not giving up more.

Saves the police from being forced to hire the right people and train them accordingly so that they can investigate real crime.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Put fear into the citizens via propaganda, and (almost) any law infringing upon personal rights and freedoms can be implemented.  "Spitting in public transmits horrible, and life debilitating diseases.  The evidence is overwhelming, and cannot be argued."  If this propaganda was promoted by our government, with pictures of disease riddled people, how long before spitting in public becomes a serious crime?  It sounds silly, but ... ?

I agree. In the instance of drinking and driving, the onus should fall squarely on those doing so. There is literally no excuse for drinking and driving, and yet, many still do. Giving the police greater access to the homes of private citizens is a grievous error on the part of this government, regardless of whether it's eventually overturned.

 

If the Minister of "Justice" really wants to mete out justice, make incarceration count for people with little to no respect for life or the safety of others.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, aGENT said:

People aren't idiots Jimmy, we know what the law is 'trying' to do.

 

Nobody's against stopping wastes of skin from killing people and using this method of defense.

 

We're against the vast overstepping of law and diminished rights for the many in the name of stopping a minute number of criminals. It's not ok.

 

minute number? over 1,200 people per year dying needlessly is minute to you? OK.

 

Instead of over reacting to big-bro, have another look at the law. I'm sure it will be tested in court but there's a pretty big loophole there for anyone not trying to dodge a drunk driving crime.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Really? You would advocate a prison sentence for someone who forgot their wallet at home and drove to work?:unsure:

When I say driving without a license, I'm referring to someone who has had their license revoked, suspended or completely taken away, and still continues to operate a motor vehicle even though they've been deemed, by law, unfit to do so due to a DUI, steady accumulation of speeding/dangerous driving infractions.

 

Not an active license holder who doesn't physically have it on their person. That's an honest mistake that anyone can make. I've made it, and was asked to let my wife drive, but due to the fact that I knew my DL number by heart, I wasn't given a ticket.  

  • Hydration 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I agree. In the instance of drinking and driving, the onus should fall squarely on those doing so. There is literally no excuse for drinking and driving, and yet, many still do. Giving the police greater access to the homes of private citizens is a grievous error on the part of this government, regardless of whether it's eventually overturned.

 

If the Minister of "Justice" really wants to mete out justice, make incarceration count for people with little to no respect for life or the safety of others.

I guess I'd ask in the instance of a person trying to escape a drunk driving offence by going home, what other remedy could there possibly be? given our current allowance of "some" alcohol being ok  to drive. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

minute number? over 1,200 people per year dying needlessly is minute to you? OK.

 

Instead of over reacting to big-bro, have another look at the law. I'm sure it will be tested in court but there's a pretty big loophole there for anyone not trying to dodge a drunk driving crime.

 

That's what, roughly 0.0032 % of the Canadian population?  I'll leave you to determine how minute that is/isn't.

 

What is that figure anyway? Is that drunk driving deaths total, or...?  How many of those were from people who used the existing 'loophole' of driving home and drinking more to avoid proper prosecution? What scumbag percentage of the population does this law actually address?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only case I've ever heard of someone doing this was a RCMP officer involved in the YVR tasering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, aGENT said:

That's what, roughly 0.0032 % of the Canadian population?  I'll leave you to determine how minute that is/isn't.

 

What is that figure anyway? Is that drunk driving deaths total, or...?  How many of those were from people who used the existing 'loophole' of driving home and drinking more to avoid proper prosecution? What scumbag percentage of the population does this law actually address?

yeah, go tell that to someone who's lost a family member to a drunk driver.

 

prior to this law, anyone had the opportunity to use this defence if they were able to get their drunk asses home fast enough. Its obscene. 

 

Police have the right to enter homes for other reasons, this isn't unique. IF it helps to prosecute and maybe even deter a few more people and saves some lives then its worth a try imo. With the exception they put in the law I don't see this being a big issue for anyone but actual drunk drivers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I guess I'd ask in the instance of a person trying to escape a drunk driving offence by going home, what other remedy could there possibly be? given our current allowance of "some" alcohol being ok  to drive. 

 

Zero alcohol content in the blood is a good starting point. When driving a 4,000 lb. (average) machine that's capable of reaching speeds well over 100 mph, it makes zero sense to allow people to have any amount of any intoxicant in their system.

 

There will always be those that try to skirt the law to serve their own purposes, sadly. I think the best possible remedy would be to note the vehicle's license plate and create a database of persons of interest who have been suspected of driving drunk but evaded capture by getting into their house before they were apprehended. When that license plate is entered into the in board computer, a red flag appears that denotes to the officer that this individual was driving erratically but weren't determined to have been intoxicated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Toews said:

 

They know that outrage drives clicks and people like you are always searching for something to be outraged about.

First...you know nothing about me so drop the arrogant crap. 

 

Secondly, Is the law what has been reported or not?  If it is, this isn't about click bait now is it.   This liberal government has a track record of passing laws that make non-law breakers criminals. That give Police powers that override our constitutional rights.   Police are increasingly being aloud to be cop, judge and jury while operating in the field.  If you don't see the danger in that, you are not paying attention to what makes our democracy better than communism or fascism. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Zero alcohol content in the blood is a good starting point. When driving a 4,000 lb. (average) machine that's capable of reaching speeds well over 100 mph, it makes zero sense to allow people to have any amount of any intoxicant in their system.

 

There will always be those that try to skirt the law to serve their own purposes, sadly. I think the best possible remedy would be to note the vehicle's license plate and create a database of persons of interest who have been suspected of driving drunk but evaded capture by getting into their house before they were apprehended. When that license plate is entered into the in board computer, a red flag appears that denotes to the officer that this individual was driving erratically but weren't determined to have been intoxicated.

I do think thats the only way to make this simple, and really come down hard on the people that deserve it vs. hassling innocent people. I don't think that our politicians have the spine for that one tho. But who knows, maybe the discussion and outrage over this law will lead to more discussion over zero-tolerance. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yeah, go tell that to someone who's lost a family member to a drunk driver.

 

prior to this law, anyone had the opportunity to use this defence if they were able to get their drunk asses home fast enough. Its obscene. 

 

Police have the right to enter homes for other reasons, this isn't unique. IF it helps to prosecute and maybe even deter a few more people and saves some lives then its worth a try imo. With the exception they put in the law I don't see this being a big issue for anyone but actual drunk drivers. 

As of December 2017 according to Community Legal Education Ontario:

 

Usually, before entering a home to arrest someone, the police must get a warrant for that purpose and they must say who they are and why they wish to enter.

 

However, the police can enter without a warrant or permission in order to arrest someone or take them into custody when they have reasonable grounds to believe that:

  • they need to enter in order to prevent someone inside from being seriously injured or killed, or
  • there is evidence in your home that relates to a serious offence, and they need to find that evidence right away or it might be lost or destroyed.

The police can also enter your home without a warrant or permission if they are in "hot pursuit" of someone whom they have the authority to arrest. For example, they would be in hot pursuit if they were chasing someone from the scene of a crime and they saw that person enter your home.

 

And the police can enter your home to look for evidence if:

  • they have reasonable grounds to believe there is evidence in your home, for example, drugs or weapons, and
  • they need to act immediately so that the evidence will not be lost or destroyed.

The police can also enter your home:

  • to give emergency aid to someone inside,
  • to protect the life or safety of someone inside if they have a reasonable belief that a life-threatening emergency exists,
  • to protect the life or safety of people in the home if someone heard a gunshot inside,
  • to prevent something that may be about to happen, if they have a reasonable belief that their entry is necessary to stop it or to protect their safety or the safety of the public,
  • to investigate a 911 telephone call,
  • to help someone who has reported a domestic assault to remove their belongings safely,
  • to protect people from injury if the police have reason to suspect that there is a drug laboratory in the house, or
  • to help animals in immediate distress because of injury, illness, abuse, or neglect.

Under child welfare law, the police can enter your home without a warrant to remove a child if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the child is:

  • neglected or abused and is "in need of protection",
  • a "runaway" under the age of 16, who was in the care of a children's aid society, and the child's health or safety might be at risk during the time needed to get a warrant, or
  • under 12 years old and has done something that would be an offence if someone 12 or older had done it.

The police cannot enter your home without a warrant just to investigate whether a child's mother or father is a good parent.

Your landlord also has the right to enter your home in an emergency. Landlords can ask a police officer to come with them.

Unless you have given the police notice not to enter your property, they can at least go onto your property to protect it from suspected criminal activity.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Zero alcohol content in the blood is a good starting point. When driving a 4,000 lb. (average) machine that's capable of reaching speeds well over 100 mph, it makes zero sense to allow people to have any amount of any intoxicant in their system.

 

There will always be those that try to skirt the law to serve their own purposes, sadly. I think the best possible remedy would be to note the vehicle's license plate and create a database of persons of interest who have been suspected of driving drunk but evaded capture by getting into their house before they were apprehended. When that license plate is entered into the in board computer, a red flag appears that denotes to the officer that this individual was driving erratically but weren't determined to have been intoxicated.

Maybe doing away with parking lots for pubs would be a good start too?  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

First...you know nothing about me so drop the arrogant crap. 

 

Secondly, Is the law what has been reported or not?  If it is, this isn't about click bait now is it.   This liberal government has a track record of passing laws that make non-law breakers criminals. That give Police powers that override our constitutional rights.   Police are increasingly being aloud to be cop, judge and jury while operating in the field.  If you don't see the danger in that, you are not paying attention to what makes our democracy better than communism or fascism. 

curious - what laws would those be? I've heard gun laws being discussed that way but not sure what else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

I do think thats the only way to make this simple, and really come down hard on the people that deserve it vs. hassling innocent people. I don't think that our politicians have the spine for that one tho. But who knows, maybe the discussion and outrage over this law will lead to more discussion over zero-tolerance. 

Of course they don't. Scumsucker Gordon Campbell is proof of that. Cops, judges, politicians, and other supposed moral pillars of society have gotten behind the wheel of a car completely $&!#faced.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Maybe doing away with parking lots for pubs would be a good start too?  

Well, the employees don't all take the bus.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DIBdaQUIB said:

First...you know nothing about me so drop the arrogant crap. 

The hypocrisy of this comment when you went at Hippy exactly the same way. 

Just now, DIBdaQUIB said:

 

Secondly, Is the law what has been reported or not?  If it is, this isn't about click bait now is it.   This liberal government has a track record of passing laws that make non-law breakers criminals. That give Police powers that override our constitutional rights.   Police are increasingly being aloud to be cop, judge and jury while operating in the field.  If you don't see the danger in that, you are not paying attention to what makes our democracy better than communism or fascism. 

Please cite this track record. I am curious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.