[OldChum]

Too bad most do not know what having no rights is all about , before we cry about losing the ones we have. Before this constitution we sure seemed to get along alot better. This seems to me like a no brainer it is about keeping drunks off the road , simple to understand.

[uwish]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

I agree with you the guy in a Kitsalino apartment doesn't need an Uzzi, but it's nuts to register my old 22 that's used only on my own property to protect the chickens.

There you have the problem. If you can have an unregistered gun, so can the guy in Kitsilano. If you can shoot whatever on your property, so can the guy on his balcony in Kitsilano... That he kills my kid that is playing on the street, is just "an accident"...

and registry or no registry that won't change. UK has a ban on ALL firearms except shotguns and their murder rates are threw the roof. Having something registered doesn't stop it from being misused by the criminal element.

[Scape]

Here is the issue I have and perhaps it is colored by where I live. I am surrounded by roadside crosses, there are kids getting killed all the time. Perhaps if the courts didn't give as light a sentence there could be a change but the fact is the community I live in is well known for its redneck roots. The location is notorious for drivers who are drunk and flaunting the law. The cops are not incompetent and they make a point to set up checkpoints often but the fact is there is a culture here that has yet to be broken and this is even with annual death tolls.

The good old boys that drive drunk for the most point do not get caught and when they do they see it more like a parking ticket to be ignored. Some don't even have a permit to drive anymore yet are still behind the wheel. Meanwhile more people die and it is just accepted as the norm when clearly if this was taken seriously there would be a stop to this nonsense. Now perhaps the courts have some hand in this but a lot of this has to do with the fact that people think driving is a right and so what if I had a case or two? These people are a menace, and they kill without discrimination.

[EyeBrock]

Scape, as I mentioned in an earlier post. In the GTA, the conviction rate of arrested impaired drivers is 30-40%.

The courts are the real problem here. Everybody else is doing their job.

It's time we held our judiciary to same level of accountability that the police face.

If you don't believe me, take a day off and sit in on a few impaired trials.

Watch the guilty walk free because a judge didn't get the 4th copy of one the 43 forms that have to be filled in for an impaired arrest, or the judge didn't think the police had reasonable grounds to arrest the slurring driver.

[OldChum]

And most of those forms are to protect their rights , in the eyes of the law.

[DrCaleb]

Scape Scape:

Here is the issue I have and perhaps it is colored by where I live. I am surrounded by roadside crosses, there are kids getting killed all the time. Perhaps if the courts didn't give as light a sentence there could be a change but the fact is the community I live in is well known for its redneck roots. The location is notorious for drivers who are drunk and flaunting the law. The cops are not incompetent and they make a point to set up checkpoints often but the fact is there is a culture here that has yet to be broken and this is even with annual death tolls.

The good old boys that drive drunk for the most point do not get caught and when they do they see it more like a parking ticket to be ignored. Some don't even have a permit to drive anymore yet are still behind the wheel. Meanwhile more people die and it is just accepted as the norm when clearly if this was taken seriously there would be a stop to this nonsense. Now perhaps the courts have some hand in this but a lot of this has to do with the fact that people think driving is a right and so what if I had a case or two? These people are a menace, and they kill without discrimination.

No one disagrees that these people need to be taken off the street. But we have first hand experience from Martin that giving up the right to unlawful search doesn't have the intended effect; experience from EyeBrock that cops don't want and probabally don't need this ability; and no real argument that random checks would give law enforcement anything they lack, or would really improve things noticibly.

From your own experience, it looks like we need to take the issue up with the Judges who somehow think after many convictions for the same thing, that people somehow can or want to be reformed. We've given society ample time to turn it's opinion around that a person's actions on drinking and driving are entirely their own responsibility, and unacceptable. Now I think it's time to start applying law we already have, without remorse.

You can not repeatedly drink and drive (and without a license) if you are behind bars. I think the action of getting in your vehicle while impaired (not just drunk, but impaired) it a violent act towards society. Perhaps they don't intend to kill someone, but their actions could at least result in harm. As an act of attempted violence, it should be treated as such. I think the first conviction, you should lose your license for a time. Second, forever. If you are convicted of driving without a license after that, it's jail because you've shown your contempt for the well being and safety of others.

$0.02

[ASLplease]

OldChum OldChum:

And most of those forms are to protect their rights , in the eyes of the law.

Any the irony is they aren't talking about tossing the criminal's rights to the wind, rather they are talking about throwing the rights of the average driver to the wind.

We sure do live in a fucked up society where some people have just enough education to dream this shit up....and actually believe that it is the correct thing to do.

[canadian1971]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's irrelevant if you pass the test after your rights have been violated. If cops were on every street corner, giving people random "pat down" searches and "show me your ID" on every street corner....

....then sooner or later we'll end up some where that looks similar to this....

[DrCaleb]

In Edmonton, we have a program called 'Curb the Danger'. Basically, if you see some slobbering drunk on the road, you can call 9-1-1 and report them.

http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/TrafficVeh ... anger.aspx

And it's working:

http://www.inews880.com/Channels/Reg/Lo ... ID=1149059

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonto ... 1-sun.html

If the vehicle can't be intercepted, then a warning is sent to the owner of the vehicle if you can get a plate.

[Richard]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Brenda, in the UK it was very easy and we even used the same machine. Here, it’s a political football and the lawyers make a lot of money out of it and the subsequent case law decisions have made the process unnecessarily complicated, hence ripe for ‘reasonable doubt’.

If you ever want to see our judicial system in action, pop along to your local court house and watch a few impaired trials. They are open to the public and anybody can sit it. I guarantee you will come out angry and disillusioned.

Anything to do with the court system these days is ridiculous.I have witnessed bs in traffic court and family court. What often seems like the obvious answer to the question never bares fruit.

[Scape]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Scape, as I mentioned in an earlier post. In the GTA, the conviction rate of arrested impaired drivers is 30-40%.

The courts are the real problem here. Everybody else is doing their job.

It's time we held our judiciary to same level of accountability that the police face.

The rate of DD that are picked up is perhaps 1 in 10. Of those caught you get the 30-40% so no they are not doing their job. Of the ones that the system manages to catch then they are processed according but far too many are not even caught.

My point here is that the system needs a history of offenses before it can lower the boon of the harsher penalties otherwise it will be overturned for being seen as unjust as compared to the myriad of other DD that got off with far lighter sentences. So it can be argued that the courts may be to lenient but if we don't catch them in the 1st place there is nothing the courts could do anyway. We need to catch these people and what we have now is far to passive a system of detection.

[Akhenaten]

What do you expect? Drunken driving convictions are up 33% in this country in the last two years. A whole new generation of a-holes who just don't get it.

Add to that I believe lawyers are advising (implying) people should leave the scene of an accident and turn themselves in when sober...which leads us to the increase in hit and runs (without going to look I think that's up 20+% int he same time period).

[EyeBrock]

OldChum OldChum:

And most of those forms are to protect their rights , in the eyes of the law.

Most of those forms are because of unrealistic case law designed to make it harder for police to get a conviction.

Having done the job in the UK with the exact same equipment, my view is, if a suspect blows over .8, they are guilty.

The way things are in Canada it's the police procedures, when the particular form was served, in which order etc are what is really on trial, not the drunk driver.

But hey, that's the way the judges and the defence lawyers want it and that's the way it will stay. Just don't blame the cops for this shit system.

[Zipperfish]

canadian1971 canadian1971:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's irrelevant if you pass the test after your rights have been violated. If cops were on every street corner, giving people random "pat down" searches and "show me your ID" on every street corner....

....then sooner or later we'll end up some where that looks similar to this....

And we're officially Godwinned. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Drive home safely.

[herbie]

$1:

Hey, in your rush to tell us all how bad your local cops are you missed the point that I am against this proposal.

Sorry, that's what happens on a Forum discussion. Just like mistaking 'pointing out lousy cops' when I meant 'deployment of resources'.
Our cops are pretty damned good, and we have more than we need here anyway. So why is there a four hour block of time when there are NO cops when we have lots to go around?
Why do we need more laws and watering down of our rights when we aren't using existing ones properly?
In our area we might see one single roadblock a year that isn't during Christmas season.