TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Under 21 here you get arrested for minor drinking. It's illegal to drink here if you're under 21.Here in Massachusetts its also .08 and the same penalties as Georgia. Under 21 that limit is .02 bac.
Under 21 here you get arrested for minor drinking. It's illegal to drink here if you're under 21.Here in Massachusetts its also .08 and the same penalties as Georgia. Under 21 that limit is .02 bac.
Let me see if I have this right..........two Americans are trying to tell me the ways of the world when it comes to Medical Marijuana in Canada. On a site for Canadian Patients. Am I missing something here ? Are you guys cops or what ? Thanks for the laughs.
so you say and think..this aint AMERICA MR.. we;re fucked up here but notr as backasswards as some of the laws they push on you folks lolHe was stoned.
He crossed the center line and killed someone.
Either his being stoned impaired him, or he's a brutal murderer that intentionally rammed the scooter and should be tried for Murder in the First Degree.
It's one or the other.
It wasn't texting as it wasn't mentioned and they can simply check the phone to see if that was the case.
Lock him up for a few years. Maybe then he'll have the damn sense to call a cab or a friend before he goes driving around baked killing people.
They should have charged him with a crime they can prove then - they decided to test the new impaired driving laws instead. Their mistake.Regardless of what the test proves, he appeared high.
He crossed into oncoming traffic resulting in death of a person, and continued driving on the wrong side of the road.
Even without using the drug test it would be easy to prove negligent operation, and vehicular homicide.
you know itThey should have charged him with a crime they can prove then - they decided to test the new impaired driving laws instead. Their mistake.
Just to play devil's advocate, that's not like Canada. At all.When it comes to narcotics, if you fail a field sobriety test and are then tested positive for ANY amount of ANY drug, you're going to jail for DUI
Well, according to the report, that is exactly what happened in this case.Just to play devil's advocate, that's not like Canada. At all.
See the part that says quote? And under that where you said if narcotics of ANY type at ANY amount are found in your system you go to jail.Well, according to the report, that is exactly what happened in this case.
Again, that is exactly what happened.See the part that says quote? And under that where you said if narcotics of ANY type at ANY amount are found in your system you go to jail.
Now see the part where I said thats not the same here?
Why are you so obtuse? This driver KILLED someone - it wasn't a simple impaired driving suspicion.He didn't go to jail for smoking weed. They have not PROVED anything and it's likely the cause of the crash was distracted driving and cannabis played no part. He's still guilty of something, but they will never prove impairment.Again, that is exactly what happened.
The driver displayed signs of being impaired. They arrested him and had him tested. He tested positive for marijuana and was immediately charged.
Now, are you going to tell me that if he tested positive for methamphetamine instead of marijuana they would have let him go?
Or alcohol?
Or PCP?
Seriously? That's what you're saying?
Why can't you read the facts?Why are you so obtuse?
Yes. He most certainly did.This driver KILLED someone
Yes, it was. It was clearly stated as such.it wasn't a simple impaired driving suspicion.
Const. Braydon Lawrence with the Edmonton Police Service’s impaired driving unit said the driver of the GMC exhibited several qualities of someone who was impaired, and was arrested on scene.
Yes, he did.He didn't go to jail for smoking weed.
Rakesh Sidhu, 45, has been charged with impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death.
Yes, they will.He's still guilty of something, but they will never prove impairment.
I read the facts. Why can't you understand we have our own laws?Why can't you read the facts?
No it wasn't. A simple impaired driving charge does not involve dead bodies. It stated no such thing.Yes, it was. It was clearly stated as such.
No he didn't. He went to jail for killing someone with his vehicle - they have no proof of cannabis impairmentYes, he did.
No they won't. This isn't the USA. They are testing a new law that legal experts have said will be struck down as unconstitutional and in violation of our charter rights. Follow the case and see what happens - the impaired charge will be dropped and he will plead to "driving with undue care and attention causing death". There is a similar case in the courts right now for a local junkie who nodded off and killed a local jogger - they dropped the impaired charge within weeks and charged him with negligence causing death - and it looks like he's going to treatment instead of jail.Yes, they will.
But dream that little dream, buddy.
Actually, no. There isn't. Not when it comes to the law.You do you realize that there is a world of difference between Georgia and Nova Scotia right ?
No, I'm not. I never claimed to be.Fess up..........you are a cop right ?
Why do you even try...? Our laws may be based on British Common Law, but that doesn't mean our justice systems are in anyway alike. Our judges are not elected, nor are law enforcement, our prisons are not a for-profit private industry and the judge determines if the guy is guilty, not the cop. There is no scientific, standardized level of thc that indicates impairment - it ain't alcohol. Our Canadian Charter Rights protects us from prosecution for something that cannot be proven and there is no way to prove impairment from cannabis. It will be 'negligence causing death' or something similar. He may go to prison for that, but it won't be for impaired driving. I've lived in this country for over half a century - I'm pretty sure I know the way things work here.You two do realize our laws are both based on the British Common Law, don't you?
Of course you don't.
Impaired is impaired. It's the same here as it is there. The man was OBVIOUSLY impaired. He was arrested. He was charged. He's going to have himself a nice, fair trial and be found guilty. If he's smart, he'll cop a plea and get a bit less time, but he's going to prison for a few years.