We Weren't Careful What We Wished For. - Page 2



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

  1. #21
    Baggsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Traffic, we don't need no stinkin' traffic!
    Posts
    7,431

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Forum Sponsor
    Quote Originally Posted by boyoboy View Post
    whoops, I thought this was provincial legislation. Thats ok, trudeau is a twit too.
    That's o.k. we're used to it around here. That's the way the politics of division works.

    p.s. I noticed you didn't retract or apologize for your attack on the conservatives after being wrong, just blamed the liberals as well.
    Ho hum, carry on.
    Ignorance is curable, Apathy not so much, but I don't care, I'll try anyway.

    Everyone likes to think that they may be the smartest person in the room, but sometimes that only occurs when we're alone!

  2. #22

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riceburner View Post
    Well that loophole is just stupid.
    Not stupid, an intentional sop for red conservatives and blue liberals. The federal election is just around the corner, after all. There are enough Bad Apples around to distort the intent of the legislation (eg. the HTA 172 kickback scheme in Hamilton) and the police are loathe to give up any powers (eg carding in Toronto). All so nervous, born-again pot smokers don't have to talk to scary dealers. Nice!
    If getting the bike ready and getting around with it means you'd rather take the car? You have the wrong bike.

    -crankcall-

  3. #23
    boyoboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    GTA
    Posts
    2,389

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baggsy View Post
    That's o.k. we're used to it around here. That's the way the politics of division works.

    p.s. I noticed you didn't retract or apologize for your attack on the conservatives after being wrong, just blamed the liberals as well.
    Ho hum, carry on.
    if you didn't like that one, you should read the one under the insurance thread in general motorcycling.

    I do not support the conservatives or the liberals. They're both corrupt - and sheep-a-low keep voting for one or the other.
    DEMOCRACY - NOT PLUTOCRACY www.globalresearch.ca

  4. #24
    Baggsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Traffic, we don't need no stinkin' traffic!
    Posts
    7,431

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Quote Originally Posted by boyoboy View Post
    if you didn't like that one, you should read the one under the insurance thread in general motorcycling.

    I do not support the conservatives or the liberals. They're both corrupt - and sheep-a-low keep voting for one or the other.
    Should I ask which local you belong to? The type of people you're talking about belong to any party, as long as they're winning.
    It's a good niche market for sociopaths. The idea is to get more and more involved, and try and promote candidates that aren't like that.
    Ignorance is curable, Apathy not so much, but I don't care, I'll try anyway.

    Everyone likes to think that they may be the smartest person in the room, but sometimes that only occurs when we're alone!

  5. #25
    boyoboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    GTA
    Posts
    2,389

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baggsy View Post
    Should I ask which local you belong to? The type of people you're talking about belong to any party, as long as they're winning.
    It's a good niche market for sociopaths. The idea is to get more and more involved, and try and promote candidates that aren't like that.
    Huh?



    and no local. I voted green in the recent provincial election.

    EDIT I think you are saying politicians are more prone to being a sociopath? I could see that. I believe Trump and Bush are both mentally ill.
    Last edited by boyoboy; 01-11-2019 at 07:08 PM.
    DEMOCRACY - NOT PLUTOCRACY www.globalresearch.ca

  6. #26
    Hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Here and there
    Posts
    441

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Quote Originally Posted by roadrash View Post
    Some tool filed a report on my bike with YRP that I was riding erratically last year. Got a warning letter from YRP stating repeat second complaint will lead to a phone call from an officer, repeat third complaint will lead to a home visit. Not eager to find out what happens after that.

    They had no proof it was me riding.

    Funny thing, the date and time stated on the letter, I was no where near that area. I know because I was at work.
    I had some road rager do the same to me...
    I received a call from the 5-0 with the same BS about getting a letter etc...
    My reply was something like...

    I have no way of knowing you're actually the police.
    You have no way of knowing if your speaking to the actual registered owner of the car reported let alone the driver of that car...
    This is just really bad phone sex...
    If you want to talk about this further, send a marked car to the address of the register owner... might be me, might not be.... you'll find out when you get here.

    The voice on the other end of the line acknowledged the futility of the practice and wished me a good day.

    The marked car never showed up.

  7. #27

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    The fearless constabulary leaps into action, lol: https://globalnews.ca/news/4828694/i...-tests-police/

    Feeling safer yet?
    If getting the bike ready and getting around with it means you'd rather take the car? You have the wrong bike.

    -crankcall-

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    "A CUTE CHICK BIKE"
    Posts
    1,284

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian P View Post
    If the police apply this in the manner that I suspect it was intended for - i.e. random officer pulls you over but doesn't have the instrumentation in his own patrol car, and it takes some time for either said instrumentation to arrive at the site or for the person in question to be brought to the instrumentation, thus the police have complete "chain of custody" between seeing the driver driving and measuring their alcohol level - there won't be either an opportunity or a need to challenge this - and rightly so.

    If, on the other hand, the police apply this in the way some are suggesting is possible - without a complete chain of custody between the driving and the drinking - it's going to get challenged, and rightly so.
    I believe the old laws would have covered your first scenario.

  9. #29
    TwistedKestrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Grimsby
    Posts
    5,317

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flywheel View Post
    The fearless constabulary leaps into action, lol: https://globalnews.ca/news/4828694/i...-tests-police/

    Feeling safer yet?
    I'm angry after reading that
    2006 Honda CB919
    "Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things." -Douglas Adams

  10. #30
    JTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Hamilton
    Posts
    764

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Enough of this red crap. I need to find an American wife.
    Steed: 2017 Honda Shadow Phantom
    2003 Yamaha YZFR6
    Cage: 2006 F150 4x4 Supercrew

    Quote Originally Posted by jc100 View Post
    Hmm...if criminals are just going to go ahead and ignore laws can you explain why we have them?

  11. #31

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riceburner View Post
    That's the problem....we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. According to the OP link, the individual has to prove their innocence.
    Individual has to open their door first, i already addressed that problem.
    14' GROM - Stretched & slammed beast
    17' FZ09 - Totaled by a left turner
    15' R3 - Sold but missed.
    "Don't confuse my attitude with my personality. My personality is who i am, my attitude depends on who you are."

  12. #32

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evoex View Post
    Individual has to open their door first, i already addressed that problem.
    The way I read the new law, if the officer believes you are at home he will kick the door down, no warrant required, and DEMAND a breath sample.
    If you refuse, you are guilty of "refuse breath sample" which is legally the same as impaired.

    I hope we can all agree this new law erodes our rights as Canadians.

    A well known Toronto lawyer made his name defending impaired cases, his specialty was challenging the evidence from the breathalyzer machine.
    A few years ago that challenge was removed by the supreme court, so now we have to assume that machine is infallible. Yep, the supreme court of Canada says the breathalyzer machine is perfect and incapable of incorrect readings.
    OH. I have a bit of experience with "machines" and haven't met one yet that is infallible.
    Fast forward a couple of years and our noted Toronto lawyer's associates used the reasonable wait provisions for breath testing in the impaired laws too often, Michael Bryant and that RCMP from the Robert Dziekański case to name a couple of high profile cases, so the supreme court removed that defense too, VERY CLUMSILY.

    When you got pulled for impaired they had to wait a reasonable amount of time after your last drink, I think it was 20 minutes, otherwise the defense lawyer would argue that you had alcohol in your mouth from the last drink that hasn't diluted which skewed the breathalyzer results.
    The law required that you were breath tested within a reasonable amount of time from when you were pulled over, I think 20 minutes, otherwise the defense would argue that were in fact below .08% when you were driving BUT your blood/alcohol went up AFTER you drove because it needed time for your system to absorb the alcohol.
    So the trick WAS to have someone witness you have an alcoholic drink AFTER you drove.
    A well known defense for impaired. I heard about it 40 years ago. Not a loophole, I think it is a valid defense... I guess someone thought it was being abused.

    So as a result we get this clumsy piece of legislation. I can sorta see where they were going... I just don't like were we ended up.
    So you're Joe Average, get home from work after another lousy 17hr. day at the cotton mill, and start poundin' the brewski's. It will you most of two hours to get good and impaired. So we can see where that was headed.
    If you are Joe Average Pot Smoker, you get home from a long half day at Spacely Sprockets, (Christ Jane, I had to push the button twice today) and light up a coner as you get out of the truck (you're on your own property now, you're legal), you're legally impaired before you get in the front door.
    Not fair nor equitable.
    They didn't think about the pot heads. Why does no one think of the pot heads?
    ... along with no warrant, no probable cause search and detainment
    ... along with expanded police powers
    What else?
    Slippery slope we have started down, and it seems to getting slipperier.

  13. #33

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Constable Mark Smith

    ďNo - Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.Ē

    JANUARY 11*∑*PUBLIC

    Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars and at home!

    You may have seen the above headline in your social media feed the past few days and I wanted to provide some clarification around this legislation update.

    To begin Ė Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.

    The title and stories basically make it sound like police will be randomly walking into bars and homes to demand a sample of your breath and lay charges if you fail. The wording is designed to be sensational and make it sound like we have sweeping new powers, the fact is we canít and donít want to just walk into your home to test you for alcohol for no reason.

    Most people are surprised to know that we could always investigate you for impaired driving if we found you sitting at a bar or at home after driving. What is important to note is that we canít just do a random check without having evidence that you were recently operating a motor vehicle. So we are not, and have no interest in just randomly showing up to your home or bar and testing you. Trust me, we have better things to do with our time.

    There is a time and a place for this however, and you may be surprised to know that we could always demand a sample from you with sufficient evidence, even if we found you at home or in a bar. This is called conducting an impaired driving investigation. As police officers we get paid to be suspicious and conduct inquiries to determine whether an offence was committed. The below is an example of an impaired driving investigation where a breath demand after the fact may be requested:

    John Doe crashes a car and flees the scene. He runs into a home or bar to try and avoid prosecution and is witnessed by members of the public or police. We find Mr Doe at home or in the bar and through our investigation we determine Mr Doe was operating the vehicle and is under the influence of alcohol. This type of investigation could include gathering witness statements, reviewing security camera footage, and collecting physical evidence found at the scene. In this case we demand a breath sample from Mr Doe as part of that investigation. This process is not new and has not changed.

    What has changed is that the law now states that you canít be over the legal limit within two hours of operating a vehicle. This change was designed to mitigate some of the common defenses utilized by impaired drivers. For example, claiming they were sober when they were driving and got drunk between exiting their vehicle and being arrested by the police. This is often what happens in cases of hit and runs similar to the example I shared above.

    These legislative amendments actually changes very little procedurally for Police but still requires the investigating officer to articulate enough grounds to prove the person was operating the vehicle impaired within the past two hours.

    In conclusion, police in Canada have always been legally entitled to request a sample of breath after the fact, this is not something new.

    Please understand that we will only be enforcing these changes as part of an impaired investigation and all the circumstances for each individual case will be taken into consideration prior to laying of any charges. And no, we wonít be randomly walking through bars or up to homes to request a test. It would only be part of an impaired investigation and even then the evidence needs to be present and significant to successfully lay a charge in this manner.

    The best and safest rule still remains: Donít drink & Drive.

    Constable Mark Smith & Constable Chris Martin

    Calgary Police Service


  14. #34
    TwistedKestrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Grimsby
    Posts
    5,317

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyperion View Post
    What has changed is that the law now states that you can’t be over the legal limit within two hours of operating a vehicle. This change was designed to mitigate some of the common defenses utilized by impaired drivers. For example, claiming they were sober when they were driving and got drunk between exiting their vehicle and being arrested by the police. This is often what happens in cases of hit and runs similar to the example I shared above.

    These legislative amendments actually changes very little procedurally for Police but still requires the investigating officer to articulate enough grounds to prove the person was operating the vehicle impaired within the past two hours.
    That's not even remotely reassuring, Constable Mark Smith
    2006 Honda CB919
    "Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things." -Douglas Adams

  15. #35
    boyoboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    GTA
    Posts
    2,389

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyperion View Post
    Constable Mark Smith

    “No - Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.”

    JANUARY 11*∑*PUBLIC

    Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars and at home!

    You may have seen the above headline in your social media feed the past few days and I wanted to provide some clarification around this legislation update.

    To begin – Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.

    The title and stories basically make it sound like police will be randomly walking into bars and homes to demand a sample of your breath and lay charges if you fail. The wording is designed to be sensational and make it sound like we have sweeping new powers, the fact is we can’t and don’t want to just walk into your home to test you for alcohol for no reason.

    Most people are surprised to know that we could always investigate you for impaired driving if we found you sitting at a bar or at home after driving. What is important to note is that we can’t just do a random check without having evidence that you were recently operating a motor vehicle. So we are not, and have no interest in just randomly showing up to your home or bar and testing you. Trust me, we have better things to do with our time.

    There is a time and a place for this however, and you may be surprised to know that we could always demand a sample from you with sufficient evidence, even if we found you at home or in a bar. This is called conducting an impaired driving investigation. As police officers we get paid to be suspicious and conduct inquiries to determine whether an offence was committed. The below is an example of an impaired driving investigation where a breath demand after the fact may be requested:

    John Doe crashes a car and flees the scene. He runs into a home or bar to try and avoid prosecution and is witnessed by members of the public or police. We find Mr Doe at home or in the bar and through our investigation we determine Mr Doe was operating the vehicle and is under the influence of alcohol. This type of investigation could include gathering witness statements, reviewing security camera footage, and collecting physical evidence found at the scene. In this case we demand a breath sample from Mr Doe as part of that investigation. This process is not new and has not changed.

    What has changed is that the law now states that you can’t be over the legal limit within two hours of operating a vehicle. This change was designed to mitigate some of the common defenses utilized by impaired drivers. For example, claiming they were sober when they were driving and got drunk between exiting their vehicle and being arrested by the police. This is often what happens in cases of hit and runs similar to the example I shared above.

    These legislative amendments actually changes very little procedurally for Police but still requires the investigating officer to articulate enough grounds to prove the person was operating the vehicle impaired within the past two hours.

    In conclusion, police in Canada have always been legally entitled to request a sample of breath after the fact, this is not something new.

    Please understand that we will only be enforcing these changes as part of an impaired investigation and all the circumstances for each individual case will be taken into consideration prior to laying of any charges. And no, we won’t be randomly walking through bars or up to homes to request a test. It would only be part of an impaired investigation and even then the evidence needs to be present and significant to successfully lay a charge in this manner.

    The best and safest rule still remains: Don’t drink & Drive.

    Constable Mark Smith & Constable Chris Martin

    Calgary Police Service

    So, are you saying what happened to the individual returning empties was acceptable? Your best and safest rule- don't drink and drive, didn't help the sober individual returning empties.
    I say when the cop held him he was under arrest- and a false arrest at that.
    This is just wrong. Sorry you cannot see this, but Im not surprised.
    Last edited by boyoboy; 01-13-2019 at 05:51 PM.
    DEMOCRACY - NOT PLUTOCRACY www.globalresearch.ca

  16. #36
    JTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Hamilton
    Posts
    764

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Be pretty easy pickings for a cop to sit at the lcbo on a friday night, and knock on doors say hour and a half after they get home.
    Steed: 2017 Honda Shadow Phantom
    2003 Yamaha YZFR6
    Cage: 2006 F150 4x4 Supercrew

    Quote Originally Posted by jc100 View Post
    Hmm...if criminals are just going to go ahead and ignore laws can you explain why we have them?

  17. #37

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    Government and their footsoldiers are putting revenue generation tools in place of what will soon be diminishing gasoline taxes.
    2017 Aprilia Tuono V4 1100 Factory

  18. #38

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Oshawa/Thornhill
    Posts
    3,107

    Re: We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

    You are incorrect on the wait, 20 minutes after the driver consumed their last drink. As an Officer, how am I supposed to know when you took your last drink?? However, it is generally at least 30 minutes from the time of a traffic stop, (not a ride setup), until the offender is presented to the breathalyzer, (you have roadside sobriety tests, to administer, reading of the charter rights, and reading of the breath demand, then the travel time to the station.

    Once a person provides a proper sample to a breathalyzer a second reading is taken, (there the breath tech MUST wait 20 minutes between samples.

    The ONLY time limit that applied to breath tests, is that the first reading MUST be obtained within a 2 hour window from first contact.

    Quote Originally Posted by bitzz View Post
    The way I read the new law, if the officer believes you are at home he will kick the door down, no warrant required, and DEMAND a breath sample.
    If you refuse, you are guilty of "refuse breath sample" which is legally the same as impaired.

    I hope we can all agree this new law erodes our rights as Canadians.

    A well known Toronto lawyer made his name defending impaired cases, his specialty was challenging the evidence from the breathalyzer machine.
    A few years ago that challenge was removed by the supreme court, so now we have to assume that machine is infallible. Yep, the supreme court of Canada says the breathalyzer machine is perfect and incapable of incorrect readings.
    OH. I have a bit of experience with "machines" and haven't met one yet that is infallible.
    Fast forward a couple of years and our noted Toronto lawyer's associates used the reasonable wait provisions for breath testing in the impaired laws too often, Michael Bryant and that RCMP from the Robert Dziekański case to name a couple of high profile cases, so the supreme court removed that defense too, VERY CLUMSILY.

    When you got pulled for impaired they had to wait a reasonable amount of time after your last drink, I think it was 20 minutes, otherwise the defense lawyer would argue that you had alcohol in your mouth from the last drink that hasn't diluted which skewed the breathalyzer results.
    The law required that you were breath tested within a reasonable amount of time from when you were pulled over, I think 20 minutes, otherwise the defense would argue that were in fact below .08% when you were driving BUT your blood/alcohol went up AFTER you drove because it needed time for your system to absorb the alcohol.
    So the trick WAS to have someone witness you have an alcoholic drink AFTER you drove.
    A well known defense for impaired. I heard about it 40 years ago. Not a loophole, I think it is a valid defense... I guess someone thought it was being abused.

    So as a result we get this clumsy piece of legislation. I can sorta see where they were going... I just don't like were we ended up.
    So you're Joe Average, get home from work after another lousy 17hr. day at the cotton mill, and start poundin' the brewski's. It will you most of two hours to get good and impaired. So we can see where that was headed.
    If you are Joe Average Pot Smoker, you get home from a long half day at Spacely Sprockets, (Christ Jane, I had to push the button twice today) and light up a coner as you get out of the truck (you're on your own property now, you're legal), you're legally impaired before you get in the front door.
    Not fair nor equitable.
    They didn't think about the pot heads. Why does no one think of the pot heads?
    ... along with no warrant, no probable cause search and detainment
    ... along with expanded police powers
    What else?
    Slippery slope we have started down, and it seems to getting slipperier.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •