InTheCrease Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 4 hours ago, peaches5 said: This has to do with what I alluded to a while ago in another thread. Where if you hit someone while drunk, leave the scene, drive home then immediately start drinking and then claim you started drinking when you got home instead of staying at the scene you get off basically scot-free as they can't prove you were driving under the influence. This was an out for someone that was piss drunk, rammed their van into my car while I was at work at a pub kitchen (early 90's). Dude crashed into my parked car at about 50 km/h, turned his van off and went inside the bar for a drink. Slammed 3 shots and a beer before the cops got there. Cop goes into the bar and asked it he appears drunk when he arrived and bartender said "I dunno". Since he was not 100% with his answer, the got won in court since there was no proof, even though a few workers saw him stumble across the road. Turns out he knew the girl who saw it (she worked the cold beer store at the pub) as well as the bartender, so she delayed letting me know my car was totaled and until he got into the bar and had a few drinks before the police. His excuse in court was that it was to "calm his nerves". Needless to say, ICBC (well did what ICBC does) and gave me wholesale book for my car, so I spent the summer taking the bus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 horse dung. Usually, twice a week, I drive home and park the car. Within 1 hour I am on my second 18oz IPA at my local pub that is across the street. What if someone has a beef with me? could they essentially 'Swat' me by claiming they saw me driving erratically on my way home? send cops to the pub or my house within 2hrs? I will blow over for sure. When I was younger, 82', we lived on a bend that was on a hill. Usually 2 vehicles per year would fly over the barrier and end up often upside down on our drive. Many of them were under the influence. My dummy dad ( sorry dad, rip) would offer them a drink or they would sprint to someone else's house to quickly consume something. By design obviously, so they could claim they were not drinking and driving. Its an old trick. So, I understand why they have pushed this law though. but it is wrong and not thought out enough. Haven't read through the thread yet. Sorry if some have already pointed out my 'swatting' like scenario. I also have to read up more on this, i'm going off what the telly was saying this morn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 10, 2019 Author Share Posted January 10, 2019 38 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said: I see interesting, well good thing I don't drink or own a gun then I don't own a gun either, (never actually fired one, tbh) but I drink enough to make up for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squamfan Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 21 minutes ago, gurn said: And they would be right to say it. Thats my point is a violation of all our rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBdaQUIB Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: I don't own a gun either, (never actually fired one, tbh) but I drink enough to make up for it... Perhaps best if you don't own one if you drink that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 6 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said: I suppose the aim is to save lives, but I have to say that I'm not particularly excited about the prospect of police officers having this much discretionary power. Most are good people, but I've met plenty of cops in my day that wouldn't be above abusing it. Alcohol, has already long not been considered an acceptable excuse for criminal behaviour. Its a bit repugnant. But I cant see why police would not have the right to breathalyse you in a bar. It does not mean they can arrest you for drunk driving. No driving drunk yet? But could be used, if the stored sample meets the scrutiny of labelling and integrity? As evidence if you were arrested later. Or if seriously intoxicated, to get you to leave the bar. Penalties also exists, big ones, for over serving to the establishment as well. But at your own home? They need a warrant just to get in. Or that you are a public danger. The time is coming that bars, roads, public places, all will, many do already, have public surveillance cameras. I imagine a case could be made of substantial evidence of impairment. Also that you were driving. Then they come check you out at home. But it takes a lot of diligence to prove how drunk you are. My conclusion is? If you are drunk at a restaurant, bar. It could be grounds to impound your car for the night. I cant justify it once you are already home. Save the cameras capturing you swerving and smashing light poles and parked cars. Running lights and stop signs. And there is still the issue you have the right not to allow the police in, or answer the door. Without a warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 10, 2019 Author Share Posted January 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: The thing is, if police were infallible, fine. They're not...far from it. And that's where the issue lies...in that, they'll be able to randomly target people without any reason. So what if that same asshat cop who pulled me over (on my first day of my new job!) and decided to delay things (as he did) foot drags and takes his time if I have to be at work? Is that fair? I haven't done anything and now I'm going to be reprimanded at work. I was speeding, so accepted that fate. But if I'm doing nothing more than driving to work, why should I have to engage in this process? I'm all for eliminating drunk driving but not at the expense of our rights and freedoms. If I'm going about my business and have done nothing wrong, I really don't want the police interfering in that. How about stationing police outside bars at closing (randomly)? The horse racing track always has drunks leaving the parking lot...go there (too). Never see cops checking on people. So rather than targeting innocent people, how about first trying to target those who blatantly drink and drive right out of these establishments. Seems targeting everyone rather than honing in on places where people drink (then drive) is time consuming and not as efficient. Liquor stores late night would be a good place to start. Fishing in a large pool rather than concentrating their efforts on obvious drinking establishments seems like wasted resources and energy. This is pretty much what had me starting the thread to begin with. I'm aware that court challenges would make a lot of these scenarios hard to prove. I'm also aware that the majority of police officers wouldn't abuse this power, but, unfortunately, in my 58 years, I've met several that I believe definitely would. Some to get their "numbers up" and some just to be jerks. Years ago I was playing in a band in Wainwright, Alberta. After we loaded our gear into the bar, we parked our vehicle (an old school bus) in the parking lot behind the hotel. For the rest of the week, it didn't move. On Saturday morning, the RCMP knocked on our door and informed us that our vehicle had been involved in a collision the night before and that they were sending paint samples from both vehicles to Edmonton for testing. If they came back a match, we were going to be held at fault for the accident. We explained to the officers that the bus had been parked all week and even if it was a match, it didn't prove who had caused the collision. This fell on deaf ears and we were in fact held liable. It cost us quite a bit of money over the next couple of years, all thanks to a crooked cop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 21 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: I'm all for eliminating drunk driving but not at the expense of our rights and freedoms. This. And IMO how we do that best is continuing to educate individuals of the risks, harms etc associated with it and continue enforcing current laws rather than eroding rights and freedoms of 37 million people to stop the 0.00033% of the population that this law would aim to punish. Seems to me this current tact is already working pretty well: https://globalnews.ca/news/4809473/surrey-new-years-road-checks/ Quote Surrey RCMP ‘happily surprised’ as NYE road checks net no criminally impaired drivers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 hour ago, DIBdaQUIB said: You are likely right in what will survive challenge. I am not as against the roadside requirements as I am the home invasion. It opens the door for governments to expand the reasons exponentially and if so, how do we become any different than Eastern Germany under the Stasi? Exaggeration I know, at least at this stage but all these violations of rights start small. Ultimately, the argument can be made that all crime could be greatly reduced if the police had the rights to pursue whatever line of investigation they chose whenever they feel a crime is being committed or even contemplated. Not so far fetched for a government that through its gun laws has shown a willingness to make criminals out of citizens that have committed no crime. thats where I'm not worried, because thats what we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for, as well as the supreme court. In theory it looks scary maybe, in practice we have the checks and balances in place in Canada to keep things from going that far, imo anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 49 minutes ago, Squamfan said: Thats my point is a violation of all our rights If it is, it will be struck down, the government can't tell our supreme court what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 26 minutes ago, aGENT said: This. And IMO how we do that best is continuing to educate individuals of the risks, harms etc associated with it and continue enforcing current laws rather than eroding rights and freedoms of 37 million people to stop the 0.00033% of the population that this law would aim to punish. Seems to me this current tact is already working pretty well: https://globalnews.ca/news/4809473/surrey-new-years-road-checks/ thats great news, one day of the year when people are highly aware of getting caught they took cabs. What about the rest of the year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 23 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: thats great news, one day of the year when people are highly aware of getting caught they took cabs. What about the rest of the year? It's also historically a day when people have driven drunk in larger numbers regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 11 minutes ago, aGENT said: In spite of a decline in impaired driving rates over the past 30 years, impaired driving still remains one of the most frequent criminal offences and is among the leading criminal causes of death in Canada. In addition, while alcohol-impaired driving is down over the past several decades, drug-impaired driving is on the rise (Allen 2016). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14679-eng.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: In spite of a decline in impaired driving rates over the past 30 years, impaired driving still remains one of the most frequent criminal offences and is among the leading criminal causes of death in Canada. In addition, while alcohol-impaired driving is down over the past several decades, drug-impaired driving is on the rise (Allen 2016). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14679-eng.htm Do you have a point? Does that dispute anything I've written? You're really hell bent on red herring's today aren't you Jimmy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarcore Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 This will end up being challenged in the Supreme Court as some point I expect. I am all against drinking and driving but the previous laws were too far let alone these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, aGENT said: Do you have a point? Does that dispute anything I've written? You're really hell bent on red herring's today aren't you Jimmy? you seem bent on minimizing the harm drunk driving does, and are far too worried about slippery slopes than real people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: you seem bent on minimizing the harm drunk driving does, and are far too worried about slippery slopes than real people. Nowhere have I minimized the harms of drunk driving. Guarantee you Marxism has killed more people than drunk driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 12 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: you seem bent on minimizing the harm drunk driving does, and are far too worried about slippery slopes than real people. It's not about minimizing the harm as it is about being realistic in an attempt to eliminate it. Think about the resources and time that will be wasted in chasing around people who are not a threat and through that, maybe missing the ones that are. It's rather unrealistic to go digging for needles in haystacks. I like my ideas better. I have sat at the track in the summer for years, watching as people get sloshed out in the sun (starting at noon and drinking until the last race between 5-6). Yet I've NEVER seen a cop near any of the exits. Would be a perfect place to set up roadblocks. If this is really about minimizing the threat, hone in on it rather than blindly casting a net out there and hoping to snag people. Increase the odds in that by targeting places realistically. Everyone in a bar is drinking...that's why they go there. So it seems more productive to wait for them to drive out, then snag them than go in and start playing detective. I just don't get it. So this man power being used to go knock on doors, etc. seems like wasting a whole lot of time and resources that could be more concentrated and focused. Not random and without much merit. You really are supposed to have evidence in order to pursue things. Not just go on a whim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, aGENT said: Nowhere have I minimized the harms of drunk driving. Guarantee you Marxism has killed more people than drunk driving. OK so what was your point with the graph then? You're arguing theory, the new law is trying to actually put a dent in the 1,200 needless deaths and 1000s more just hurt in accidents. Lets agree to disagree and see how it plays out, I don't think we're going to find a middle ground here today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: It's not about minimizing the harm as it is about being realistic in an attempt to eliminate it. Think about the resources and time that will be wasted in chasing around people who are not a threat and through that, maybe missing the ones that are. It's rather unrealistic to go digging for needles in haystacks. I like my ideas better. I have sat at the track in the summer for years, watching as people get sloshed out in the sun (starting at noon and drinking until the last race between 5-6). Yet I've NEVER seen a cop near any of the exits. Would be a perfect place to set up roadblocks. If this is really about minimizing the threat, hone in on it rather than blindly casting a net out there and hoping to snag people. Increase the odds in that by targeting places realistically. Everyone in a bar is drinking...that's why they go there. So it seems more productive to wait for them to drive out, then snag them than go in and start playing detective. I just don't get it. So this man power being used to go knock on doors, etc. seems like wasting a whole lot of time and resources that could be more concentrated and focused. Not random and without much merit. I hear what you're saying, and those are good ideas. I don't think the law is going to be applied randomly, they are just more tools in the box to catch drunks, and for the really bad ones, the ones who know how to game the system out of a homicide charge, maybe we get them too. But lets see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.