| Author | Post |
|---|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 12:10 am |
|
onwaranupwar wrote:
Perhaps the laws are different in Alberta. But in BC if you run across a roadblock on Christmas Eve chances are you will be stopped and the cops don't have to provide any sort of probable cause at all. Generally they ask for the driver's licence and ask him/her if they've been drinking. They don't need anything to take it a step further and demand that the driver take a breathalyzer test except their own intuition.
I don't feel that this is any kind of contravention of my civil rights and I also don't think it's meant to accomplish anything sinister. It's meant to put the fear of the law into idiots who drink and drive. I can't get upset about it because I think it will be part of a solution that will save lives.
Sorry, but the law isn't different, you just misunderstand the law as it applies across Canada. While the police do not need just cause to pull a car over, they DO need probable cause to administer a breath test. When the officer pulls you over and talks with you, what he is really doing is determining if he has just cause to administer the breath test. If he determines that he does, he will administer the test, If he does not, he will not and will let you drive away.
That's the whole issue here. They are considering "overriding" the Constitution and removing the requirement of just cause. Let's be clear. The Constitution requirement for probable cause prior to search and seizure, is one of our most fundamental rights. They are considering removing that right, in this instance. But anybody that thinks that once they get away with removing this right on this issue, that it will not spread to other issues, has another think coming.
So regardless of whether you feel the erosion of rights is worth it for the greater good, or whether you feel it will directly effect you on this issue, the fact is that this is not about the right to drive, but about a right that is supposedly protected by our Constitution, the slow erosion of the protections it grants all of us, and the risk of allowing the government to ignore ALL the rights in the Consitution.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 12:19 am |
|
onwaranupwar wrote: I can and do get upset about the new law that will be enacted in BC whereby cops can remove homeless people by force from the streets even though no crime has been committed and confine them. This is not in the interests of the homeless person: it's a way of making the problem appear to not exist to visitors to the city during the Olympics and it most definitely is a breaching of people's civil rights.
where's the outcry about this travesty that does nothing at all for our society?
In part I agree with you, but in fact vagrancy IS already an offense, so by doing "nothing" on the streets, they are in fact doing something - breaking the law.
So , while I may not feel it's the best way to deal with the issue, their rights are NOT being violated.
|
onwaranupwar
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 12:22 am |
|
Great White wrote: onwaranupwar wrote:
Perhaps the laws are different in Alberta. But in BC if you run across a roadblock on Christmas Eve chances are you will be stopped and the cops don't have to provide any sort of probable cause at all. Generally they ask for the driver's licence and ask him/her if they've been drinking. They don't need anything to take it a step further and demand that the driver take a breathalyzer test except their own intuition.
I don't feel that this is any kind of contravention of my civil rights and I also don't think it's meant to accomplish anything sinister. It's meant to put the fear of the law into idiots who drink and drive. I can't get upset about it because I think it will be part of a solution that will save lives.
Sorry, but the law isn't different, you just misunderstand the law as it applies across Canada. While the police do not need just cause to pull a car over, they DO need probable cause to administer a breath test. When the officer pulls you over and talks with you, what he is really doing is determining if he has just cause to administer the breath test. If he determines that he does, he will administer the test, If he does not, he will not and will let you drive away.
Since the making the post I've checked on my statement above and you're right. The police do need solid probable cause to administer a breathalyzer. But apparently proving probable cause is so difficult that drunken drivers often are not tested event when they're stopped:
"According to an American study, 60 per cent of impaired drivers are not detected as they pass through police roadblocks. The reason? Police in the U.S., as in Canada, need to have reasonable cause to suspect a driver is impaired before administering the test."
http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_thompson_nicola/clearwatertimes/opinion/63898492.html
What's reasonable? It sounds to me like the cops' hands are tied. This new law seems a way to make sure that people who should be tested ARE tested.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 12:42 am |
|
onwaranupwar wrote:
Since the making the post I've checked on my statement above and you're right. The police do need solid probable cause to administer a breathalyzer. But apparently proving probable cause is so difficult that drunken drivers often are not tested event when they're stopped:
"According to an American study, 60 per cent of impaired drivers are not detected as they pass through police roadblocks. The reason? Police in the U.S., as in Canada, need to have reasonable cause to suspect a driver is impaired before administering the test."
http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_thompson_nicola/clearwatertimes/opinion/63898492.html
What's reasonable? It sounds to me like the cops' hands are tied. This new law seems a way to make sure that people who should be tested ARE tested.
Thank you for the information. I would be interested in knowing how they came up with the number 60%, as if the people got thru they don't know about them. I am wondering if that's a reasonable accurate number based on some truly valid info, or just somebody's guess. I'd also be wondering what the difficulty is. If one is to drunk to drive, they generally show signs, although not always at the lower levels I grant you. However the most certainly would smell like booze.
In any case, I can't really say the goal is not admirable. However there is a clear striping of our rights here. Honestly, if it was just this one thing, I'd be OK with it. But it NEVER stops at one thing. Once they have a precedent for this sort of thing, they always find something else to apply it to. It IS the proverbial slippery slope.
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 09:44 pm |
|
Cluck, cluck, cluck....the sky of falling, the sky is falling!
Pretty obvious GW, you haven't gone on that ride-along yet...or better still, see if you can arrange to spend a night at the local ER, another place you'll really get an idea what drunk drivers do.
Just love to have you made to do the NOK for a kid killed by a drunk.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 12:06 am |
|
If you want to argue that it is worth stripping our rights to slove the problem, that's one thing. It's a simple matter of opinion.
To deny that is is an erosion of rights altogether, makes you a fool
Correction: You are already a fool I'm sure. This just shows how much of one.
Last edited on Fri Oct 16th, 2009 12:09 am by Great White
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 12:15 am |
|
Can anybody even show how there will actually be a tangible benefit from this? Anything conclusive that shows this measure would or could REALLY catch more drunks, or lower DUI rates ?
Or is it just a kind of, let's strip your rights, and see what happens, maybe something, maybe nothing kinda thing ?
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 02:54 am |
|
Do the math...more checks, more catches. Still haven't the balls the face the reality of the ER or police patrols huh?
|
onwaranupwar
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 03:19 am |
|
Great White wrote: Can anybody even show how there will actually be a tangible benefit from this? Anything conclusive that shows this measure would or could REALLY catch more drunks, or lower DUI rates ?
Or is it just a kind of, let's strip your rights, and see what happens, maybe something, maybe nothing kinda thing ?
I honestly do not believe that cops are going to spend a lot of time indiscriminately administering breathlayzer tests just for the sheer perverse pleasure of it. I think they're going to administer tests to people that they suspect are driving and drinking, the same people that get passed over now because the cops don't have quite enough probable cause to test without repercussions.
Personally I would tolerate the inconvenience of a breathalyzer test if I thought that even 1 life was going to be saved by this law.
It certainly doesn't come close to the kind of rights stripping involved in the law allowing a municipal official to come into my home and take down signs with content they don't care for.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 02:24 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Do the math...more checks, more catches. Still haven't the balls the face the reality of the ER or police patrols huh?
Right........ because you have said dumbass sh*t, I'm going to take a day off work, rush out and and force myself on some cop into a ride-along. And that makes sense to you ?
How about determining if there is an actual benefit before stripping 35 million people of their basic civil rights as granted in the Constitution ?
There's more to it than math. If the cops don't have just cause, maybe it's because those people haven't been drinking. You can give breath tests to all the sober people you want, it isn't going to catch more drunks.
This is about search and seizure without just cause. You know what else is a problem. Grow-ops and meth labs. As we (you) are no longer concerned about this right, then why don't we let cops bust down doors without just cause. More doors, more grow-ops and meth labs , right ? It's all for the greater good right ? If you don't have a meth lab you shouldn't mind, right ?
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 02:40 pm |
|
onwaranupwar wrote: I honestly do not believe that cops are going to spend a lot of time indiscriminately administering breathlayzer tests just for the sheer perverse pleasure of it. I think they're going to administer tests to people that they suspect are driving and drinking, the same people that get passed over now because the cops don't have quite enough probable cause to test without repercussions. If they REALLY suspect the person has been drinking, that IS probable cause. I just don't see how this has any tangible benefit. Maybe there is, but not that I have seen.
Personally I would tolerate the inconvenience of a breathalyzer test if I thought that even 1 life was going to be saved by this law.
This one thing, in of itself, not a big inconvenience. I agree. The bigger issue is that you have now breached the presumption of innocence, and allowed for search and seizure without just cause. It's a horrible precedent. And anybody that think it will stop there is nuts. Once this precedent is set, they WILL apply it to other issues. And sure, most cops are great people. But give the a-hole ones this power, and they WILL abuse it
It certainly doesn't come close to the kind of rights stripping involved in the law allowing a municipal official to come into my home and take down signs with content they don't care for.
I am unsure what you are referring too
Last edited on Fri Oct 16th, 2009 02:40 pm by Great White
|
onwaranupwar
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 11:28 pm |
|
Great White wrote:
It certainly doesn't come close to the kind of rights stripping involved in the law allowing a municipal official to come into my home and take down signs with content they don't care for.
I am unsure what you are referring too
See the thread I started re: Big Brother Comes to the BC Olympics.
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 01:52 am |
|
Gods Onwar? You don't expect GW to look beyond his own backyard do ya? You know what myopia is like.![[eyeroll]](/forums/themes/default/sarcasm.gif)
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 06:46 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: You know what myopia is like.
I do.
It's somewhat like when one supports the erosion of rights to achieve a noble, yet short term goal, but is to short sighted to see the farther reaching and long lasting implications of such such actions.
Actually, It's EXACTLY like that.
Which is exactly like you.
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:02 am |
|
Careful...that sky if still plummeting towards you...better get that aluminum hat on tight.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 02:28 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Careful...that sky if still plummeting towards you...better get that aluminum hat on tight.
..... says the blind AND foolish poster boy for myopia
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 02:32 pm by Great White
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 11:11 pm |
|
One cannot reason with a zealot. You are a zealot.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 04:16 pm |
|
One can reason with an idiot. You are an idiot
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 04:22 pm |
|
Then thing is RC, that you have not even tried to reason.
I have laid out my position and the reasons for it. I have said my concern is not this instance in of itself. I have look forward and my concern is for the future implications.
For this you called me myopic i.e shortsighted. While you have a right to disagree, only fool would looking forward and having concern for the future to be shortsighted.
You on the other hand have have only said that you agree with the proposal., and that anybody that does not agree must be wearing a tinfoil hat, and be shortsighted.
You don't actually dispute my position in any way, or with any facts or reason. You're onlty defense is that I must be wearing a tinfoil hat, i.e am insane.
That's real compelling. - Any body that doesn't agree with you must be insane.
And you consider that to be trying to reason with somebody
You take foolish to new heights.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 04:24 pm |
|
Great White wrote: One can reason with an idiot. You are an idiot
Obvious typo here. Clearly didn't mean this as typed. Meant:
One can not reason with an idiot. You are an idiot
But hey. I made a typo. Since you don't have anything valid to say, I expect you'll be all over that.
Last edited on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 04:26 pm by Great White
|
Current time is 01:34 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
