CalyxCrusher
Well-Known Member
And yet, it still happens.Cops don't need to fabricate a story. They can randomly pull you over for three reasons. Previously they couldn't expand the contact beyond the reason for the stop.
And yet, it still happens.Cops don't need to fabricate a story. They can randomly pull you over for three reasons. Previously they couldn't expand the contact beyond the reason for the stop.
LOL so instead of stopping at the questions you asked you had to be a flaming twat waffle and go with "yeah I thought so." Considering I'm a single bus ride from Parliament Hill I absolutely went. I guess assumptions DO make an ass out of you....yeah I thought so.Out of curiosity how many participating in this post wrote their MP prior to the change? How many protested on parliament hill or got involved beyond complaining after the fact? yea that's what I thought.
they would need a reason to be on the property in the first place. Tell them to come back with a warrantWrong. Motor vehicle act applies to private propery. Look it up. I did after I was pulled over on a farm.
Fucking rights, GTFO my land Pig Dogs, calyx crusher and I are booze cruising through the bush, doobies blazing.they would need a reason to be on the property in the first place. Tell them to come back with a warrant
A friend of mine was dumb and drove into a light pole years ago. He ran home on foot and went to bed. Cops dragged his ass out of bed and he was charged with an impaired. Lost in court because of a witness. You bet your ass they will come get you.They cannot charge you with an offense if you've had a drink after you drive a vehicle and are no longer in control of the vehicle, the clock starts there from that drink. there are documented cases of people crashing cars running to the bar or home and downing drinks they got charged only to be acquitted of DUI charge and convicted of leaving the scene. They can charge you with anything but conviction is impossible because of reasonable doubt. It's a really stupid argument put up by the gentleman who was quoted in the article and most police officers arent usually that stupid, although some are exceptional lol.
A good friend of mine came home shitfaced, his wife blew a gasket and demanded he go pick up the pizza.A friend of mine was dumb and drove into a light pole years ago. He ran home on foot and went to bed. Cops dragged his ass out of bed and he was charged with an impaired. Lost in court because of a witness. You bet your ass they will come get you.
Your friends not very smart, all he had to do was say I had a few drinks to calm my nerves after the accident, case closed. Impossible to convict legally, to be honest your best saying nothing and hiring a lawyer. He will fix it if your smart enough to keep the piehole shut.A friend of mine was dumb and drove into a light pole years ago. He ran home on foot and went to bed. Cops dragged his ass out of bed and he was charged with an impaired. Lost in court because of a witness. You bet your ass they will come get you.
Not too sure if I'm misinterpreting the wording of the law or if you are.They cannot charge you with an offense if you've had a drink after you drive a vehicle and are no longer in control of the vehicle, the clock starts there from that drink. there are documented cases of people crashing cars running to the bar or home and downing drinks they got charged only to be acquitted of DUI charge and convicted of leaving the scene. They can charge you with anything but conviction is impossible because of reasonable doubt. It's a really stupid argument put up by the gentleman who was quoted in the article and most police officers arent usually that stupid, although some are exceptional lol.
They have to prove you didnt drink from the time you left the vehicle that's the flaw.Not too sure if I'm misinterpreting the wording of the law or if you are.
View attachment 4262830
That was the case prior to this new law being put in place. I know a few who have beaten DUIs that way.
If thats a fact its nonsense. What you quoted means everyone would have to abstain from alcohol for a minimum of 2 hrs after getting home, party, or bar. Imagine the line at the bar.
They would have to prove that you were driving within 2 hours of operating your vehicle. That could be something as simple as the officer "seeing" you I would think. I was 100% fine with giving a breath sample if ever I was pulled over but this seems a step too far to me. I'll have to sit back and watch what happens I suppose.They have to prove you didnt drink from the time you left the vehicle that's the flaw.
Came from the Gov site. I'll pull the link up for you.If thats a fact its nonsense. What you quoted means everyone would have to abstain from alcohol for a minimum of 2 hrs after getting home, party, or bar. Imagine the line at the bar.
Not in Canada... Cant imagine how it would be possible to enforce this in any country.Came from the Gov site. I'll pull the link up for you.
Unfortunately yes it is lol. I'll be (trying) quietly watching from the sidelines to see how this unfolds.Not in Canada... Cant imagine how it would be possible to enforce this in any country.
It's a wonder you feel your rights are worthless my dear.R v Ladouceur It's established precedent google it. You're welcome to take a stand on a position however naive and ignorant it may be. And under the modified law the cop articulated the reason for his suspicion even though he was not required to do so. Someone has an opinion that differs from yours must be a pig? Grow up.
Most first world countries have random breath testing. UK, Australia, France, most of Europe. And most have seen a reduction in the alcohol related traffic deaths. I'm not convinced the two are mutually exclusive since the number of impaired drivers continues to drop decade after decade in Canada as well. I think the social stigma has more to do with it, but this will be a deterrent to impaired driving. Millennials are sick of the messed up world we've inherited and it's our turn to shape it how we want it. Like it or lump it.
Cops don't need to fabricate a story. They can randomly pull you over for three reasons. Previously they couldn't expand the contact beyond the reason for the stop. For example a cop couldn't "legally" use a license/insurance check, then ask to search your vehicle. They would have to let you go after your papers cleared. That's not to say it didn't happen.
Which section of the charter of rights and freedoms covers operating a motor vehicle? Since you're clearly so versed, please point it out to me because I cannot find it.
Out of curiosity how many participating in this post wrote their MP prior to the change? How many protested on parliament hill or got involved beyond complaining after the fact? yea that's what I thought.