Toronto Escorts

York police starts publicly naming people charged with impaired driving

black booty lover

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2007
9,738
1,655
113
Make breath alcohol ignition interlock device mandatory in every vehicle sold. Problem solved. It will no doubt inconvenience the majority of the driving population who don't drink and drive. But I'm sure everyone will understand that it's in the best interest of public safety.
Kind of what I had in mind. Something along those lines.
 

derrick76

Well-known member
May 10, 2011
2,168
89
48
Toronto, ON
Public shaming has been taken to a level beyond reason. Sorry but that is just fact. Regardless of what the shaming is or if you personally agree with the negative impact of the offence being shamed. We have laws and penalties. Education is not the same as shaming. This is purely shaming. Nothing else.

My statement does not negate my feelings on drunk driving, on what the victims of a drunk driver go through, or anything of the sort. So please don't try and tote victims in my face as a way to counter my point.

Shaming is huge now that smartphones, internet etc, has become available as a tech boom for people. Doesn't make it right. When we are resorting to public shaming as the deterrent, then we as a society are doing something wrong. You are free to disagree.
The guys, not yet convicted, whose names and photos are plastered over the news for other crimes would agree with you
 

massman

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2001
4,274
2,522
113
Even as someone who’s family has been harmed by impaired driving, I disagree with handing out punishment for a crime before conviction. And that is what this “public shaming” is, it’s a punishment. There are certain individual civil liberties that we have in our society, and a presumption of innocence is one. Start chipping away at civil liberties in the name of public safety, where does it stop?
 

kugel2

Banned
Jan 13, 2017
310
0
0
Good point but the police will be given the authority to conduct a breathalyzer without probable cause. You can be pulled over for a broken tail light or just pulled over and given a breathalyzer test. At a Ride Spot check you can answer NO and the police has a some extra time and give you a test, then without your day in court be named. I believe a constitional case can be made with a 50/50 chance of success.
Oh for sure there will be constitutionality charges on the administration of tests without reasonable suspicion, which is the current threshold for those tests, and that threshold has been upheld by the courts. Random testing will be challenged for sure.

I was making the point that the publication of names once criminal charges are laid before the courts is public information, unless pr0hibited by a court ordered publication ban. Two very different things.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Because that's not a conviction in a court of law.

It's about setting a line.
That's precisely why we have Breathalysers™ and made that test prima facie evidence for conviction on that limited offence.

Are you thinking the Police — or the media carrying the story — will misrepresent a charge of blowing-over as a conviction by a Court?

Or do you imagine a subsequent report of someone beating a Breathalyser™ in Court wouldn't make the news?
 
Last edited:

TeeJay

Well-known member
Jun 20, 2011
8,052
731
113
west gta
Start? Really???

Other jurisdictions have been naming and shaming for years with full descriptions like age and vehicle driven
Peel, Halton etc

Oh and apparently in Niagara region as well:
They have been putting names on the Niagara Regional Police website for years.


I would prefer after conviction. I think charged is taking away the presumption of innocence at the core of a fair system.
I concur and I'll be surprised if it's not challenged on a constitutional basis. I don't drink alcohol but I've always thought it's unfair to name people only charged and yet not convicted with any offense.
I think crossing the line when listing those " CHARGED " and not yet convicted. Esp. under our legal system of innocent until proven guilty.
LMAO @ challenge
You can ALWAYS print FACTS in the papers or on online (how many times have you seen "person X charged with theft/breaking in/assault/fraud/tax evasion" etc etc etc)

You guys don't watch news do you?
 

Jasmine Raine

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2014
4,049
48
48
I smoke and drive every day. Often times I’m even blazing one on the 401 ��
and you will be one of the first busted when the roadside pot test becomes available. Which is only a couple of months away once another province is finished its testing.
 

bazokajoe

Well-known member
Nov 6, 2010
9,258
7,199
113
Public shaming is NOT the proper legal way to go about anything. It lowers us as a society
It's no different than the guy who has been falsely accused of sexual assault and everybody else who has been falsely accused of any crime.There picture/name is posted in papers and police websites before a trial date is even set.
 

spankingman

Well-known member
Dec 7, 2008
3,637
311
83
IMHO If you fail the breathalyzer you are basically guilty of impaired driving. Not much leeway if you blow 2 or 3 times over the limit. I have seen the carnage on the roads,seen the results in ER. I have NO respect or sympathy for ANYONE who drives impaired. People need to take their own responsibility for their alcohol consumption but it will never happen which is very sad.
 

icespot

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2005
1,692
84
48
It's time to find a solution to a fixable problem. Shaming a person and destroying their live is not the answer.

Innocent until proven guilty and having the right to a fair trail should be at the core of our society.

You will never know how important that is until, you face a false or wrongfull conviction.

But if they decide to go this way, when the police are wrong they should be held responsible for any fuck up. To the point of police officers being fired and imprisoned for their mistake.
 

spankingman

Well-known member
Dec 7, 2008
3,637
311
83
It's time to find a solution to a fixable problem. Shaming a person and destroying their live is not the answer.

Innocent until proven guilty and having the right to a fair trail should be at the core of our society.

You will never know how important that is until, you face a false or wrongfull conviction.



But if they decide to go this way, when the police are wrong they should be held responsible for any fuck up. To the point of police officers being fired and imprisoned for their mistake.
Pretty hard to think Marco Muzzo was "innocent" before proven guilty!!!!
 

icespot

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2005
1,692
84
48
Pretty hard to think Marco Muzzo was "innocent" before proven guilty!!!!
yes, but Muzzo cases with such clear evidence are not common. Most cases have limited and sircumstansial evidence.

you ever sat through a court case? I want the right person to answer for the crime. If you convict an inocent person, two crimes have been committed and the guilty person got away with it.

100% inocent until proven guilty, and I was the victim of a horrendous assault when I was 14 years old. I protected my friend from being sexually assaulted and got beaten to a pulp by three adult meals, the oldest being 24. I was left in a pool of my own blood, in and out of contiones, and it happen downtown hamilton at around 9:30, pm on our way home from cadets band practice.
 

|2 /-\ | /|/

Well-known member
Mar 5, 2015
6,515
1,131
113
Generally I agree in this concept of not shaming people as a tactic especially for grey areas however when these people are harming or have the potential to harm others because of breaking the law intentionally then what better method do you have to deter others from doing the same?

What I am confused about is how are they NOT guilty if they take a breathalyzer test and fail and are the driver. How is that not conclusive? Maybe adjust the procedure so they have the option to take a blood test and then when both tests are conclusive post their names. If they wait too long then the power of this shaming technique provides little to no value.

I also disagree in public shaming for grey areas. However people that cause harm to others or have the potential to cause harm to others because of breaking the law should be shamed. Key here is causing physical harm to others.

A lot of people criticize but don’t propose or tell us the alternative solution or an idea that might work better then what we already have in place? I think majority of us can agree that this is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

Would stiffer penalties work? i.e. permanent drivers license suspension. Maybe heavy jail time? What do you think would work here?

yes, but Muzzo cases with such clear evidence are not common. Most cases have limited and sircumstansial evidence.

you ever sat through a court case? I want the right person to answer for the crime. If you convict an inocent person, two crimes have been committed and the guilty person got away with it.

100% inocent until proven guilty, and I was the victim of a horrendous assault when I was 14 years old. I protected my friend from being sexually assaulted and got beaten to a pulp by three adult meals, the oldest being 24. I was left in a pool of my own blood, in and out of contiones, and it happen downtown hamilton at around 9:30, pm on our way home from cadets band practice.
 

kugel2

Banned
Jan 13, 2017
310
0
0
"What I am confused about is how are they NOT guilty if they take a breathalyzer test and fail and are the driver. How is that not conclusive? Maybe adjust the procedure so they have the option to take a blood test and then when both tests are conclusive post their names. If they wait too long then the power of this shaming technique provides little to no value. "

Seldom is the actual reading ever truly challenged in court. The roadside breathalyzer doesn't give a reading, it gives a Pass, Warn, or Fail. The machine at the station gives a quantitative number. The science behind the machine and the results are pretty solid, so its tough to show they were wrong. More often the cases are tossed or plead down to lesser offenses because somewhere along the line the procedures were in question, i.e. time between tests, making sure that the person had not just consumed before providing a roadside sample, delays in the test being taken, etc. It is very rare to have a case dismissed because the driver was over the limit and his readings or identity couldn't be proven. People who think a court case is a search for the truth are mislead. It's not about the truth, its about the proof. If there is a procedural violation, the proof is tossed, and the case is lost. Whether the person was hammered and driving is then irrelevant.

Unfortunately license suspensions aren't that effective. We've all heard of drivers with lifetime bans doing it again and again. A ban only works if the person respects it. There is nothing to physically stop them.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,518
2,368
113
and you will be one of the first busted when the roadside pot test becomes available. Which is only a couple of months away once another province is finished its testing.
For the record, I do not condone drug/alcohol impaired driving. That said, they have roadside testing equipment, but my question is how accurate is it. When people talk of driving high, what is the threshold for impairment/over the limit. Not everyone is smoking a huge fatty and driving. Just like not everyone is having 8 drinks and driving. If I went out for dinner and had 2 glasses of wine, I'd be nowhere close to the limit. If I had one or two puffs off a joint over the same time period, am I under or over the limit?

We know your body processes an average of 1 standard drink per hour. What about THC? It's clearly not the same. I think there's going to be some serious court challenges with this new equipment. Which makes publishing people's names for drug/alcohol driving offences even worse.


Generally I agree in this concept of not shaming people as a tactic especially for grey areas however when these people are harming or have the potential to harm others because of breaking the law intentionally then what better method do you have to deter others from doing the same?
Well that's the question, is it actually a deterrent or just public shaming. They've been doing it in several jurisdictions for years. It should be easy to compare the numbers of alcohol related driving charges before and after they started publishing names. I've heard some stats reported on the radio that it has not made a difference. If you find any conclusive evidence that it's working, by all means, post a link.


Seldom is the actual reading ever truly challenged in court. The roadside breathalyzer doesn't give a reading, it gives a Pass, Warn, or Fail. The machine at the station gives a quantitative number. The science behind the machine and the results are pretty solid, so its tough to show they were wrong.
Correct, sort of. The Pass, Warn, Fail has a level associated with it. Where you can run into trouble is if your BAC is between 0.05 and 0.08 which is the warn range. If you blow a Warn, you'll receive an immediate 3-day licence suspension. This cannot be appealed. An additional $250 penalty begins January 2019.

In this case, the Police are the Judge, Jury and Executioner. It should be noted that while your actual BAC may be below 0.05, residual alcohol in your mouth (especially if you had a shot prior to getting pulled over) could put you well over. I know this to be a fact as I've done experiments with friends using a high end, portable breathalyzer that uses fuel cell sensor technology.

The difference in readings between two people of the same sex, size and weight, having had the same amount of food and alcohol before the test, varied considerably when one person drank a glass of water prior to the test. In other words, rinsing your mouth with water can lower your breathalyzer reading.

Many times, breathalyzer readings may be inaccurate because the machine may
be affected by mouth alcohol. If a person has used a substance such as mouthwash before a breathalyzer test, the machine may give a reading that shows a high level of alcohol content in the person’s breath. This means that the machine will show that the person is legally intoxicated even though they may be completely sober.

It's worth noting, considering the Police will suspend your licence for 3 days, tow and impound your car on the spot for blowing a Warn. So it's entirely possible to gargle with mouthwash, get in your car, get pulled over a few minutes later and blow a warn.


Unfortunately license suspensions aren't that effective. We've all heard of drivers with lifetime bans doing it again and again. A ban only works if the person respects it. There is nothing to physically stop them.
Breath alcohol ignition interlock device...
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
"Let us install the breath alcohol ignition interlock, or we'll release your name to the media for blowing over. 08"

Is that what you have in mind? For how long would they have to leave the device in place, and who would pay for keeping it calibrated?
 

hoorawr

Active member
Oct 5, 2008
351
72
28
and you will be one of the first busted when the roadside pot test becomes available. Which is only a couple of months away once another province is finished its testing.
Lol... I am high 90% of the day. Unless I told you, you would never be able to tell.

Cops won’t screen you if you just say no, sista
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,518
2,368
113
Lol... I am high 90% of the day. Unless I told you, you would never be able to tell.

Cops won’t screen you if you just say no, sista
Cops can pull you over for no reason at all and administer a test, regardless of what you say, sista.
 
Toronto Escorts