2018 impaired driving to be decriminalized.

[mac1983]

I personally know a couple of repeat impaired drivers, that when busted go hire this defense lawyer that charges from $15 000 to $18 000 a case and they get off every time. And they were guilty as sin. The impaired defense lawyers have a pretty good thing going. Not sure what the answer is but impaired driving is stupid. I believe the ignition interlock should be made permanent for repeat offenders.

[Hillbilly 12]

Originally Posted by mac1983

I personally know a couple of repeat impaired drivers, that when busted go hire this defense lawyer that charges from $15 000 to $18 000 a case and they get off every time. And they were guilty as sin. The impaired defense lawyers have a pretty good thing going. Not sure what the answer is but impaired driving is stupid. I believe the ignition interlock should be made permanent for repeat offenders.

Sure at their expense, not mine.

[223MB]

Originally Posted by mac1983

I personally know a couple of repeat impaired drivers, that when busted go hire this defense lawyer that charges from $15 000 to $18 000 a case and they get off every time. And they were guilty as sin. The impaired defense lawyers have a pretty good thing going. Not sure what the answer is but impaired driving is stupid. I believe the ignition interlock should be made permanent for repeat offenders.

Same here. A buddy of mine who owns a trucking company blew well over twice the legal limit, admitted to the cop of drinking a case of beer and got off on all charges. He paid $18,000 for his lawyer but it’s a good investment considering his business relied on him having a license. I wonder how much of a cut the judge takes?

[Skoaltender]

Quite a few drinking and driving advocates on here.

[mac1983]

It's almost a pay to play scheme if you have the money.

[223MB]

Originally Posted by mac1983

It's almost a pay to play scheme if you have the money.

Should be no second chances, get charged once and you never drive again.

[mac1983]

Permanent driving bans are pretty drastic, if you kill someone for sure. Have seen good results from the interlock program, make that permanent for repeat offenders and you have something.

[BuckCuller]

This just tells us the direction this province has gone where the court system is so backlogged that higher profile criminals are getting off because of long wait times in the courts so now they are trying to relieve some of the burden by removing lower profile cases out of the courts so they can go after bigger fish. This doesn’t affect me much as I do not drink and drive but I would hate to see a murderer or a thief go free because they are to backlogged with impaired driver cases.

[Scott N]

Originally Posted by Skoaltender

Quite a few drinking and driving advocates on here.

I don't see a single post advocating drinking and driving on here. Not a single one.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Scott N

I don't see a single post advocating drinking and driving on here. Not a single one.

Exactly, but some people consider anything that goes against any impaired driving laws to be advocating impaired driving. Even the courts have ruled that some of our impaired driving laws are unconstitutional, but the courts are certainly not advocating that people drive while impaired.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by BuckCuller

This just tells us the direction this province has gone where the court system is so backlogged that higher profile criminals are getting off because of long wait times in the courts so now they are trying to relieve some of the burden by removing lower profile cases out of the courts so they can go after bigger fish. This doesn’t affect me much as I do not drink and drive but I would hate to see a murderer or a thief go free because they are to backlogged with impaired driver cases.

I don't drink and drive either, but how would you feel about having your license suspended, and your vehicle towed and impounded when you are innocent?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story...rs-questioned/

“When tested, the machine showed a reading of 32 (milligrams of alcohol),” said Doroshenko, referring to an RCMP Kamloops note to Davtech, the Ottawa firm that fixes the machine.

“The second test after calibration showed a reading of 172.”

“The highest I think we saw, there was one unit from Abbotsford that just issued a fail when the officer tested it for basic functionality at the beginning and then they said ‘retired unit’,” Doroshenko said.

“He hadn’t been drinking at all. It just gave a fail.”

“They’re not perfect units,” he said, waving one of the police repair reports in the air.

“There was one calibration sheet that recorded readings for eight units and six of eight were 10 milligrams above what they should have been.”

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I don't drink and drive either, but how would you feel about having your license suspended, and your vehicle towed and impounded when you are innocent?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story...rs-questioned/

Not a perfect system. They can be wrong the other way too.

How about unless you're ok with some drunk slamming into you and you're family one night let's work with what we have to keep them off the road.

If you have a better idea contact someone and share it. Whining about it here gets you precisely no where.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fitzy

Not a perfect system. They can be wrong the other way too.

How about unless you're ok with some drunk slamming into you and you're family one night let's work with what we have to keep them off the road.

If you have a better idea contact someone and share it. Whining about it here gets you precisely no where.

The courts have already decided that the current law is unconstitutional. The problem is, that the proposed replacement, is likely just as unconstitutional. As for getting slammed into by an impaired driver, I am just as much against being slammed into a driver who is using his phone, and that still happens at least as often. I have never been in an accident caused by an impaired driver, but I was in an accident that was caused by a young punk on his phone. Only instead of receiving a big fine, and a suspension, he received a fine no worse than a speeding ticket.

[fishtank]

Originally Posted by 223MB

Should be no second chances, get charged once and you never drive again.

got to give them another shot at the Darwin award . let hope no innocent bystanders is around when they attempt it again ..

[Ken07AOVette]

Further Liberal stupidity. I am as impressed with this as I am the joker that was just caught with drugs, guns, loaded handgun, rolls of 20's and has a huge long criminal record, got 60 days in jail.
Now they are buying all the drinker votes, already have the drug users, the immigrant vote, always had the Eastern vote, the FN vote and now the ex-ISIS vote. What stupidity is left to decriminalize?
When nothing is illegal anymore crime will run even more rampant. Maybe the shining light at the end if the tunnel will be that it will no longer be illegal to kill intruders. We can only hope.

[BuckCuller]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I don't drink and drive either, but how would you feel about having your license suspended, and your vehicle towed and impounded when you are innocent?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story...rs-questioned/

I wouldn’t like to be falsely charged with anything. One day a women that doesn’t like me could say I sexually assaulted her and I wouldn’t get much chance to prove my innocence just the same.
When it comes to dealing with police i’m always polite, happy and play stupid which always works out in my favour so I’m not to concerned with being falsely charged.
There is no chance of getting the money back for tow and compound fees.

My brothers truck got towed and impounded while he was hunting because the RCMP just happened to run across his truck parked in the ditch while he was hunting.
Luckily I was around to pick him up and figure out who stolen his truck. No reimbursement.
I tell you though if he would have froze to death because they took his truck I would have filed murder charges.

[SamSteele]

I might be a bit biased after watching my father and another man die on the side of the highway after being hit by a repeat drunk driver who left the scene. No 16 year old should have to call his mother to tell her that her husband was killed.

I fully support throwing the book at those that drink and drive. I couldn’t care less about your legal fees, towing fees, and the inconvenience you may experience. None of that compares to growing up without a family member, which could have been entirely avoided had the repercussions for drinking and driving been more severe.

SS

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by SamSteele

I might be a bit biased after watching my father and another man die on the side of the highway after being hit by a repeat drunk driver who left the scene. No 16 year old should have to call his mother to tell her that her husband was killed.

I fully support throwing the book at those that drink and drive. I couldn’t care less about your legal fees, towing fees, and the inconvenience you may experience. None of that compares to growing up without a family member, which could have been entirely avoided had the repercussions for drinking and driving been more severe.

SS

Presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of our legal system, you start chipping away at it and soon the police will be wanting to be able to sentence you on the side of the road for other offenses as well.

No police officer should have the power to impose a sentence on the side of the road and then force you to prove your innocence at a later date.

By all means, increase the penalty for impaired driving, but those penalties should be handed down by a court. Not by the same, possibly biased officer, who is accusing you of the offense. And certainly not before the Crown has to prove its case.

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

Originally Posted by sns2

You know what a good system would be? Put a blower on the wheel of every vehicle that detects both booze and pot. It's not foolproof, but it's a helluva lot better than drunks and stoners killing people on our roads, and to a lesser extent clogging up our courts. If you are not a boozehound or stoned you should have no objection to such a system.

I like this idea. If it were refined to a great extent such as face recognition while the person is driving and voice recognition when starting the vehicle I think it's possible.

[BuckCuller]

Originally Posted by SamSteele

I might be a bit biased after watching my father and another man die on the side of the highway after being hit by a repeat drunk driver who left the scene. No 16 year old should have to call his mother to tell her that her husband was killed.

I fully support throwing the book at those that drink and drive. I couldn’t care less about your legal fees, towing fees, and the inconvenience you may experience. None of that compares to growing up without a family member, which could have been entirely avoided had the repercussions for drinking and driving been more severe.

SS

You should have no reason to call yourself biased as I hate drinking and driving also and I have not had your devastating misfortune.
However we are talking about government and they don’t care about anything but votes and money.
This is an attempt to clear up the court system by pushing the burden down the line to the police instead of investing more money into the justice system. They have to use the courts if they throw the book at them and that costs money and adds congestion to the court system. The way they waste money elsewhere takes away from what could be done and this is there quick fix.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Even people accused of murder are entitled to a trial, so why wouldn't a person accused of impaired driving get a trial?

But if you want to try to penalize people for demanding their right to a day in court, make the other option that the officer that presented the charges lose his license for life for making a false accusation, if the accused is found not guilty. That sounds just as fair.

Because an accused person gets found not guilty and gets off does not mean that the officer is guilty of making a false accusation. Often the accused gets off because a technicality or the lawyer has established a reasonable doubt. If an officer is penalized for acting in good faith it will be no time before Police are reluctant to lay any charges.

That said, I am all for throwing the book at the officer if found guilty of knowingly presenting false accusations or committing perjury.

On the other side, no one should ever be penalized for demanding their right to a trial.

The government needs to find some other way to un clutter the system. I would say that the most push back on this is from the lawyers whose bread and butter is getting drunks off. It is the lawyers who will loose out if drunks are not prosecuted. It is the public that will be safer if the drunks are not allowed to drive. Sure the very odd sober guy might loose his license and vehicle, but that is one thing that lawyers can help and feel good about.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by whiteout

No police officer should have the power to impose a sentence on the side of the road and then force you to prove your innocence at a later date.

I hope you are not implying that the Police actually want to do this? I think that the government is dumping this on the Police. I think that good cops like to gather evidence, make a good case and charge bad guys and look forward to their day in court.

It is the lawyers that have made this a gravy train industry.

BTW I am in favor of dropping the legal from .08 to .05 and no breaks or discretion on the part of the officers. Let those drunks all have their day in court. Let the court be the one to offer discretion and not create another thing where the cop is damned if he does and damned if he does not.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Because an accused person gets found not guilty and gets off does not mean that the officer is guilty of making a false accusation. Often the accused gets off because a technicality or the lawyer has established a reasonable doubt. If an officer is penalized for acting in good faith it will be no time before Police are reluctant to lay any charges.

That said, I am all for throwing the book at the officer if found guilty of knowingly presenting false accusations or committing perjury.

On the other side, no one should ever be penalized for demanding their right to a trial.

The government needs to find some other way to un clutter the system. I would say that the most push back on this is from the lawyers whose bread and butter is getting drunks off. It is the lawyers who will loose out if drunks are not prosecuted. It is the public that will be safer if the drunks are not allowed to drive. Sure the very odd sober guy might loose his license and vehicle, but that is one thing that lawyers can help and feel good about.

And the fact that an officer accuses a person of an offense, desn't mean that the person actually committed that offense. Without a trial, we only have the officers word to go on, and officers have been found guilty of perjury, or of fabricating evidence, or of concealing evidence, or of simply making a mistake. So we need a trial to establish the facts, and see if the officer is following procedure and is presenting the actual facts. Having a trial forces the officers to do their job.
The poster that I was responding to wanted to further penalize any person that demanded his right to a trial, at least you don't agree with that .
As for the sober person that loses his license and vehicle, without the option of a trial, he will never be compensated for his loss, and the truth will never be discovered. He could lose his job, and have his life ruined because of a mistake. In extreme cases, this could cause a person to resort to suicide, or even a murder/suicide all because he was denied a trial.
I am sorry, but as badly as our charter of rights is written, the right to a trial s still something that must be maintained if we are to remain a free country. If our right to a free trial is taken away for suspected impaired driving, they will soon do it for other offenses, and it won't be long before fair trials are nothing but a memory, in our future police state.

The simple truth, is that the easiest way to get rid of the back up of court cases for impaired driving, is to ban alcohol all together. As well, you can be sure that this would save lies, and would greatly reduce the incidence of alcoholism, and the problems that it brings such as domestic abuse etc. If a person is really serious about protecting people against impaired drivers, there is no solution that would be more effective.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by SamSteele

I might be a bit biased after watching my father and another man die on the side of the highway after being hit by a repeat drunk driver who left the scene. No 16 year old should have to call his mother to tell her that her husband was killed.

I fully support throwing the book at those that drink and drive. I couldn’t care less about your legal fees, towing fees, and the inconvenience you may experience. None of that compares to growing up without a family member, which could have been entirely avoided had the repercussions for drinking and driving been more severe.

SS

I am all for harsh sentences for the people found guilty of impaired driving. There is no way that person should ever have the opportunity to commit three or four or five counts of impaired driving. But I did post "convicted" of impaired driving, not just "accused" of impaired diving without having been convicted in a court of law. Have a trial, and if the person is found guilty, then throw the book at them, but don't declare them guilty on the side of the road, while denying them a trial.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And the fact that an officer accuses a person of an offense, desn't mean that the person actually committed that offense.

Yes, but do you really believe that happens a lot? I am sure that the odd case could slip through, but the facts of the case are checked by the officer's superior and then the assigned crown goes over the facts. I have been in court for literally hundred of cases and not all have been proved by the crown, but I have only heard of one case where the judge suggested that the officer was lying. Most cases get chucked out on reasonable doubt which to the court is any doubt. The rule is that the crown must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused. For the most part it may suggested that the officer was mistaken but very seldom suggests that the officer did not have grounds to lay the charge, let alone had an ulterior motive.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And the fact that an officer accuses a person of an offense, desn't mean that the person actually committed that offense. Without a trial, we only have the officers word to go on, and officers have been found guilty of perjury, or of fabricating evidence, or of concealing evidence, or of simply making a mistake. So we need a trial to establish the facts, and see if the officer is following procedure and is presenting the actual facts. Having a trial forces the officers to do their job.
The poster that I was responding to wanted to further penalize any person that demanded his right to a trial, at least you don't agree with that .
As for the sober person that loses his license and vehicle, without the option of a trial, he will never be compensated for his loss, and the truth will never be discovered. He could lose his job, and have his life ruined because of a mistake. In extreme cases, this could cause a person to resort to suicide, or even a murder/suicide all because he was denied a trial.
I am sorry, but as badly as our charter of rights is written, the right to a trial s still something that must be maintained if we are to remain a free country. If our right to a free trial is taken away for suspected impaired driving, they will soon do it for other offenses, and it won't be long before fair trials are nothing but a memory, in our future police state.

The simple truth, is that the easiest way to get rid of the back up of court cases for impaired driving, is to ban alcohol all together. As well, you can be sure that this would save lies, and would greatly reduce the incidence of alcoholism, and the problems that it brings such as domestic abuse etc. If a person is really serious about protecting people against impaired drivers, there is no solution that would be more effective.

Eggzakley.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Yes, but do you really believe that happens a lot? I am sure that the odd case could slip through, but the facts of the case are checked by the officer's superior and then the assigned crown goes over the facts. I have been in court for literally hundred of cases and not all have been proved by the crown, but I have only heard of one case where the judge suggested that the officer was lying. Most cases get chucked out on reasonable doubt which to the court is any doubt. The rule is that the crown must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused. For the most part it may suggested that the officer was mistaken but very seldom suggests that the officer did not have grounds to lay the charge, let alone had an ulterior motive.

If it happened to you, would you care if it didn't happen often?

[sns2]

I think everyone has had the opportunity to express themselves. All sides have been expressed. It has also generated complaints that are valid. Now is a good time to wind this one up before it gets away on us.