[BartSimpson]

Hmmmm.

If it's okay for the police to randomly stop drivers in Canada and ask them to prove that they're not drunk then why would it be wrong for the police in Arizona to ask people they've stopped for other offenses to prove their right to reside legally in the US?

[Brenda]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hmmmm.

If it's okay for the police to randomly stop drivers in Canada and ask them to prove that they're not drunk then why would it be wrong for the police in Arizona to ask people they've stopped for other offenses to prove their right to reside legally in the US?

Actually, I don't think that is not ok. I am perfectly ok with proving I am legally living in Canada.
Every time I cross the border, I have to. But I guess for you guys it's weird, because you never had to carry proof of citizenship with you. I always had. Like I said, in The Netherlands, it's mandatory for everyone over 14 to carry some form of government ID. Drivers license is no ID btw.

[ASLplease]

anytime arbitrary and random detainment is discussed, it is totaly reasonable to compare the actions to other examples of the same. just because the other examples ( nazis) were extreme bastards on every level, doesnt excuse them from comparisons.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hmmmm.

If it's okay for the police to randomly stop drivers in Canada and ask them to prove that they're not drunk then why would it be wrong for the police in Arizona to ask people they've stopped for other offenses to prove their right to reside legally in the US?

Feel like swapping that around?

Hmmm.

If it's okay for the police in Arizona to ask people they've stopped for other offences and ask them to prove their right to reside legally in the US then why would it be wrong for the police to randomly stop drivers in Canada and ask them to prove they're not drunk?

Sorry, merely shades of grey really. Pulling someone over for a burntout tail light leading to - "Papers please." Tell me, really, that an old white woman will be asked that as opposed to the young brown fella...

[Gunnair]

ASLplease ASLplease:

anytime arbitrary and random detainment is discussed, it is totaly reasonable to compare the actions to other examples of the same. just because the other examples ( nazis) were extreme bastards on every level, doesnt excuse them from comparisons.

Did it take this long for Godwin's Law to kick in? Really?

[EyeBrock]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hmmmm.

If it's okay for the police to randomly stop drivers in Canada and ask them to prove that they're not drunk then why would it be wrong for the police in Arizona to ask people they've stopped for other offenses to prove their right to reside legally in the US?

Well, that’s not quite how it works Bart. Most Canadian provinces have a highway traffic act that gives the police the power to stop any vehicle on a highway (as in a public road) to ensure that the driver is licensed and has insurance. This power has been reinforced often by provincial high courts and the supreme court of Canada.

It is a seen as a reasonable infringement of rights for the greater good of the community, as in lets lock up drunk drivers.

If the Constable who pulls you over to check your license smells booze, then that’s reasonable grounds to believe your ability to drive is impaired by alcohol.

You’re nicked.

Alternately the SCC has endorsed police RIDE checks by favourable case law.

At a RIDE stop target area drivers are asked if they have had anything to drink.
If you say that you have drunk alcohol the police can take that as reasonable suspicion to believe your ability to drive is impaired by alcohol.

That means they have the power to demand a sample of breath. With a power of arrest.

If they smell alcohol when you say you have not imbibed or detect other intoxicants, see above.

That is all far from random. And the case law across the Provinces is probably the most active in the area impaired driving judgments.


Go to any Canadian court and watch the list for the day. It will be 25-50% impaired drivers.

[RUEZ]

I though of a good compromise to satisfy the people that don't care about their civil liberties. I figure the government can have all drivers in BC install a breathalyzer interlock, at the owners expense of course. I hear they cost around 1500 installed. If you can't afford that you can just go down to money mart and get yourself a loan at 100% interest. Don't worry it's just a minor inconvenience for the overall safety of the public. This way everyone wins.

[Lemmy]

RUEZ RUEZ:

I though of a good compromise to satisfy the people that don't care about their civil liberties. I figure the government can have all drivers in BC install a breathalyzer interlock, at the owners expense of course. I hear they cost around 1500 installed. If you can't afford that you can just go down to money mart and get yourself a loan at 100% interest. Don't worry it's just a minor inconvenience for the overall safety of the public. This way everyone wins.

Hell, go one step farther: force the automakers to have all new cars equipped from the factory.

[EyeBrock]

RUEZ RUEZ:

I though of a good compromise to satisfy the people that don't care about their civil liberties. I figure the government can have all drivers in BC install a breathalyzer interlock, at the owners expense of course. I hear they cost around 1500 installed. If you can't afford that you can just go down to money mart and get yourself a loan at 100% interest. Don't worry it's just a minor inconvenience for the overall safety of the public. This way everyone wins.

I'd say that was an unreasonable infringement of you’re constitutional rights.

Just a tad.

[Gunnair]

RUEZ RUEZ:

I though of a good compromise to satisfy the people that don't care about their civil liberties. I figure the government can have all drivers in BC install a breathalyzer interlock, at the owners expense of course. I hear they cost around 1500 installed. If you can't afford that you can just go down to money mart and get yourself a loan at 100% interest. Don't worry it's just a minor inconvenience for the overall safety of the public. This way everyone wins.

Well, I'll begin by saying I'm not convinced of the need, nor am I convinced that it's bad. I will say this - what is the difference between this and the counter attack campaigns which randomly pulls me over and asks me if I have been drinking?

I think nothing. Both stop me randomly for the only purpose of assessing whether or not I've consumed alcohol. Since I have not heard of huge pushbacks from the public on counterattack, I'm not sure why there would all of a sudden be a pushback now.

[RUEZ]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

RUEZ RUEZ:

I though of a good compromise to satisfy the people that don't care about their civil liberties. I figure the government can have all drivers in BC install a breathalyzer interlock, at the owners expense of course. I hear they cost around 1500 installed. If you can't afford that you can just go down to money mart and get yourself a loan at 100% interest. Don't worry it's just a minor inconvenience for the overall safety of the public. This way everyone wins.

I'd say that was an unreasonable infringement of you’re constitutional rights.

Just a tad.

I can't drive a vehicles without seatbelts and headlights and a variety of other safety features. Let's just add one more.

[Lemmy]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Well, I'll begin by saying I'm not convinced of the need, nor am I convinced that it's bad. I will say this - what is the difference between this and the counter attack campaigns which randomly pulls me over and asks me if I have been drinking?

I think nothing. Both stop me randomly for the only purpose of assessing whether or not I've consumed alcohol. Since I have not heard of huge pushbacks from the public on counterattack, I'm not sure why there would all of a sudden be a pushback now.

It's like the difference between gambling on the slot machines and playing poker. You stand a chance of winning at the RIDE stop. You have the opportunity to influence the outcome on the basis of your skill at hiding your impairment/consumption.

[EyeBrock]

RUEZ RUEZ:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

RUEZ RUEZ:

I though of a good compromise to satisfy the people that don't care about their civil liberties. I figure the government can have all drivers in BC install a breathalyzer interlock, at the owners expense of course. I hear they cost around 1500 installed. If you can't afford that you can just go down to money mart and get yourself a loan at 100% interest. Don't worry it's just a minor inconvenience for the overall safety of the public. This way everyone wins.

I'd say that was an unreasonable infringement of you’re constitutional rights.

Just a tad.

I can't drive a vehicles without seatbelts and headlights and a variety of other safety features. Let's just add one more.

I'd say that your examples are inequitable compared to legislating interlock devices.

It's all very dramatic Ruez but I don't support random breath tests. Scroll back, I say it often.

I do support the staus quo on enforcement powers. The police have adequate powers in this area.

They have stood the test of legal scrutiny and they do the job.

[RUEZ]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It's all very dramatic Ruez but I don't support random breath tests. Scroll back, I say it often.

I never said you did. It was all tongue in cheek. Scroll back and you'll see it was never directed at you.

[EyeBrock]

RUEZ RUEZ:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It's all very dramatic Ruez but I don't support random breath tests. Scroll back, I say it often.

I never said you did. It was all tongue in cheek. Scroll back and you'll see it was never directed at you.

Ok...I'm chillin'....!