 Drunk driver as dangerous offender?Law & Order | 206781 hits | Sep 06 12:27 pm | Posted by: stokes  Canadian legal history could be made this week when a Quebec man finds out whether he will become this country's first drunk driver to be declared a dangerous offender.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
I am of the opinion that if you drive drunk, just once you should not be allowed to drive EVER again. How many more must die for the sake of stupidity?
But in a Valleyfield, Que., courtroom this Wednesday, a judge could set a legal precedent that would make it easier for repeat drunk drivers who kill people to be locked away under that designation.
Roger Walsh pleaded guilty to a 19th impaired driving charge last December - this time after he mowed down Anee Khudaverdian in October. The wheelchair-bound mother was out with her dog, on her 47th birthday.
While awaiting the decision from Quebec court Judge Michel Mercier, the victim's sister said it's a historic opportunity to make roads safer.
There's a difference between 19 DRUNK offenses and a homicide and someone who drove with 0.10 (like me). I do not consider me like a dangerous offender.
While I agree in principal to your statement, but heres my argument.
The guy who gets caught 19 times and finally kills someone
The guy who decides to drive drunk just once and kills someone
Theres no middle ground.
I don't say that we should label all who get caught as dangerous offenders, I do say that if someone is caught even one time they should never be able to legally drive again, they have lost that right in my eyes (possibly I'm biased due to a loss of a friend when I was a teen)
There's a difference between 19 DRUNK offenses and a homicide and someone who drove with 0.10 (like me). I do not consider me like a dangerous offender.
While I agree in principal to your statement, but heres my argument.
The guy who gets caught 19 times and finally kills someone
The guy who decides to drive drunk just once and kills someone
Theres no middle ground.
I don't say that we should label all who get caught as dangerous offenders, I do say that if someone is caught even one time they should never be able to legally drive again, they have lost that right in my eyes (possibly I'm biased due to a loss of a friend when I was a teen)
But seriously, there's a huge difference between driving drunk and driving between 0.08-0.10.
Personnaly, I want worse sentences for people like him or people driving drunk. But, they need to differentiate 0.10 and 0.30. ATM, it's the same offence.
There's a difference between 19 DRUNK offenses and a homicide and someone who drove with 0.10 (like me). I do not consider me like a dangerous offender.
I do.
A reading of .1 means you shouldn't have been driving, PERIOD. you had caused injury to someone, what's the difference? Just that you didn�t do it as often?
With the publicity about impaired driving being so mainstream, I can�t believe anyone still does it.
There's a difference between 19 DRUNK offenses and a homicide and someone who drove with 0.10 (like me). I do not consider me like a dangerous offender.
While I agree in principal to your statement, but heres my argument.
The guy who gets caught 19 times and finally kills someone
The guy who decides to drive drunk just once and kills someone
Theres no middle ground.
I don't say that we should label all who get caught as dangerous offenders, I do say that if someone is caught even one time they should never be able to legally drive again, they have lost that right in my eyes (possibly I'm biased due to a loss of a friend when I was a teen)
But seriously, there's a huge difference between driving drunk and driving between 0.08-0.10.
Personnaly, I want worse sentences for people like him or people driving drunk. But, they need to differentiate 0.10 and 0.30. ATM, it's the same offence.
.08 is the legal limit, that is the point where science has deemed that someone is impared enough that their reations, thought process and decisions are not up to par, I want no one on the roads with a level of .08.
I myself will not drive after 2 drinks, I'll take a cab, call a friend or my wife or take a bus, it's not worth it. The kid that killed my friend tested at .09
There's a difference between 19 DRUNK offenses and a homicide and someone who drove with 0.10 (like me). I do not consider me like a dangerous offender.
I do.
A reading of .1 means you shouldn't have been driving, PERIOD. you had caused injury to someone, what's the difference? Just that you didn�t do it as often?
With the publicity about impaired driving being so mainstream, I can�t believe anyone still does it.
Sorry but 0.10 is not a lot. People do not have testing kit with them. Driving while having a slurred speech and zig zaging, that's much worse than driving after taking some glass of wine (that's what happened to me) with some friends. That guy had the same offence than me even if his was much worse. That's a problem.
I myself will not drive after 2 drinks, I'll take a cab, call a friend or my wife or take a bus, it's not worth it. The kid that killed my friend tested at .09
I do not say that I didnt deserve it. I say that driving WAY OVER the limit should be worse. I'm not in the same category than him. Never. But what I had says so.
Sorry but 0.10 is not a lot. People do not have testing kit with them. Driving while having a slurred speech and zig zaging, that's much worse than driving after taking some glass of wine (that's what happened to me) with some friends. That guy had the same offence than me even if his was much worse. That's a problem.
That's even worse. Attempting to excuse it. Drunk driving offenses should be so severe that people just don't try.