Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 25 to 39 of 39

Thread: Canadians could now be charged with drunk driving — even if not drunk, lawyers warn

  1. #25
    Well here's a crazy idea....Don't answer the door. They can't force entry. If you are stupid enough to answer the door, do not step outside your house. If they want to come in and get you, they will need a warrant.

  2. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by kugel2 View Post
    Well here's a crazy idea....Don't answer the door. They can't force entry. If you are stupid enough to answer the door, do not step outside your house. If they want to come in and get you, they will need a warrant.
    They talked about that scenario on the radio and mentioned that the police can barge in and arrest you.

    I am not too sure how deep this new law goes, but the fact that personal and privacy rights are being stripped away like this is concerning.
    Yes, that is me with my new whistle


  3. #27
    Fabulously Full Figured Jessica Rain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    www.jessicarain.ch
    Posts
    2,867
    Blog Entries
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by The "Bone" Ranger View Post
    That is not what I was getting at - I believe the guilty should remain behind bars rather than roam the streets. To answer your question I do agree with carding and ride checks.
    It is not right to be harassed, detained and inspected without cause. That is my opinion.

    I agree that guilty people should be behind bars, off streets but I can't get behind randomly inspecting people or in this case having the legal power to come to your house within 2 hours of coming home, test you and have you jailed when you legally where sober when driving and come home and legally drank.

    I get the chances of that are slim for an innocent person, however when those legal rights are removed, other legal rights will be as well in the future and soon enough we will have no rights at all. We can't let laws like this be enacted just because it doesn't really personally effect us.

    I'm good to agree to disageee on this but only because I like how you cum.
    Fabulously Full Figured Fun

    Jessica Rain



    Website: www.jessicarain.ch

    Twitter: @MsJessicaRainSP

  4. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica Rain View Post

    I'm good to agree to disageee on this but only because I like how you cum.
    Ha Ha Ha! That works for me!!! (and I love your creamy heavy tits)

    Aria Alexander

  5. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Ref View Post
    They talked about that scenario on the radio and mentioned that the police can barge in and arrest you.

    I am not too sure how deep this new law goes, but the fact that personal and privacy rights are being stripped away like this is concerning.
    Nice of you to share the opinion of your radio, but I'll wait for a judge to say that is indeed what the new law permits.

    However I think it's highly unlikely that under-resourced police forces will calculate that it is any sort of useful enforcement strategy to randomly enter homes in the hopes of finding a drinker with a driver's license they can breathalyse. One who will blow over, one they can also prove had care and control of a car driven within the last two hours.

    My bet is they'll use their new power only after establishing a reasonable level of certainty that they'll find an actual offender, who can be prosecuted with a likelihood of conviction.

    What progress?

  6. #30
    Fabulously Full Figured Jessica Rain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    www.jessicarain.ch
    Posts
    2,867
    Blog Entries
    14
    So for every guy here who is not worried about the new law on this, none of you feel bad about now being criminals when engaging in this activity?
    Fabulously Full Figured Fun

    Jessica Rain



    Website: www.jessicarain.ch

    Twitter: @MsJessicaRainSP

  7. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by oldjones View Post
    Nice of you to share the opinion of your radio, but I'll wait for a judge to say that is indeed what the new law permits.

    However I think it's highly unlikely that under-resourced police forces will calculate that it is any sort of useful enforcement strategy to randomly enter homes in the hopes of finding a drinker with a driver's license they can breathalyse. One who will blow over, one they can also prove had care and control of a car driven within the last two hours.

    My bet is they'll use their new power only after establishing a reasonable level of certainty that they'll find an actual offender, who can be prosecuted with a likelihood of conviction.
    It's highly unlikely that you'll get busted for soliciting sex, yet here we are.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  8. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    It's highly unlikely that you'll get busted for soliciting sex, yet here we are.
    As living, posting proof of that, on a board supported by the money received from illegal business to advertise their activities, and widen their customer base.

    Fortunately, in spite of the few but still too-frequent bad apples and the usual inefficiencies of rule-obsessed bureaucracies, most of our police services really do focus their efforts on maintaining peace and good order and protecting the public.

    What progress?

  9. #33
    Did this Government just remove our human rights and take a leap forward towards a Police State ? How can this be legal and what mad man would conceive of it ? And what idiot would agree with it ?

  10. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by oldjones View Post
    As living, posting proof of that, on a board supported by the money received from illegal business to advertise their activities, and widen their customer base.

    Fortunately, in spite of the few but still too-frequent bad apples and the usual inefficiencies of rule-obsessed bureaucracies, most of our police services really do focus their efforts on maintaining peace and good order and protecting the public.
    It only takes one asshole with a legislative backing to ruin your life is my point. And it doesn't matter if the charge is withdrawn, not guilty or overturned on appeal. The damage is done to your reputation, professional and/or personal and not to mention 50-100k in legal fees.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  11. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by kstanb View Post
    The most likely scenario:
    you crashed your car after drinking, you managed to leave before the police found you; but they caught you 2 hours after, and they now have the right to request an alcohol test

    I think it is fair, in court you might prove that you drank after the crash, that you were not drunk at the time, if there is reasonable evidence
    In a case like that, they have a "probable cause" to demand a test. I don't think that is any different than it ever was. It shouldn't be up to citizens to prove we weren't drinking. It should be up to the "state" to prove that we were. A blood test 2 hours after an accident doesn't prove you were drunk at the time of the accident. In cases like that, the prosecutors would also need to show evidence (witnesses, credit card receipts) that you were in fact drinking prior to the accident.

    My understanding of this new law is that a cop can demand a breathalyzer without reason. In other words, you could be stopped for a minor speaking infraction and without any reason to believe you were drinking (smell, slurred speech etc) demand a breath test. On the surface, this seems harmless, but what concerns me is that it's the thin edge of the wedge. If this is ok, then is searching your trunk ok because you were speeding. If you run a red light, is it going to be ok for the cops to follow you home and search your home?

    My other concern is that roadside breath analyzers are notoriously inaccurate. That's why they are primarily used to either "browbeat" you into leaving your vehicle or going to the station for a blood test. Both of with are potentially major pains in the ass. So to be clear, if you've been drinking, great. But for tests that result from random stops, it's just a huge interference with our rights.

    I am no fan of drunk driving. I barely drink at all, period. I do however, cherish my right to move about without police interference. Not because I'm driving around with a body in my trunk, but because the Constitution says I can do that. This small change in the law opens the door for great police powers.

    I can't imagine that this won't be challenged in court and it should be overturned.
    Horny Scot

  12. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica Rain View Post
    You don't get it. You can be tested 2 hours after DRIVING and still be charged.

    So you go home, planning to stay in for the night, have 2 beers and police knock on your door, demand a breath test and if you fail, you're fucked.

    That is the stupidity of this law. At least that is my understanding of the stupidity of It
    What she said ^^

    This is the strangest law I have ever heard. I hope it gets challenged and overturned by SCC

  13. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica Rain View Post
    If you want to allow an infringement of your rights that is cool but others prefer to retain theIrs. I prefer to be innocent before guilty, probable cause, etc.

    All those things that laws like this, chip away at. Not to mention, I don't want the cost of proving in court I was sober when I got home and had a couple between driving home and the police showing up at my door. Why should I be paying to prove my innocence that way???? Sorry but that part just doesn't fly.
    Exactly... ^^^

    Since some here are okay with the new powers given to Police, why not let them do a quick pat down of anyone suspected of carrying a weapon? It takes less than 30 seconds and could go a long way to getting weapons of the hands of criminals. There was 426 shooting occurrences with 609 victims in Toronto last year, so it's obviously a problem, right?

  14. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by oldjones View Post
    Nice of you to share the opinion of your radio, but I'll wait for a judge to say that is indeed what the new law permits.
    I have yet to figure out how to provide a link to something I heard on the radio.
    Yes, that is me with my new whistle


  15. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Ref View Post
    They talked about that scenario on the radio and mentioned that the police can barge in and arrest you.

    I am not too sure how deep this new law goes, but the fact that personal and privacy rights are being stripped away like this is concerning.
    As a hunter and legal gun owner, I will just say this.

    Anyone. ANYONE who barges through my door without a legal warrant or probable cause is considered a hostile threat, and gets a shotgun blast to the chest, while I quote the Constitution and the Charter of Rights.

    Last time I checked, my Canada was still glorious and FREE.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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