Rcmp /breathalyzer
Got stopped yesterday for speeding East of town. Doing 120 in 110 . Officer asked for drivers licence etc and then pulled out a breathalyzer. I was shocked. Did right in the truck didnt have to get out of the truck.
|
Policy is that everyone has to blow on a stop under the new legislation.
Don't blow and get charged. If everyone has to blow then it is not arbitrary, and not an arbitrary detention and not a Charter violation. Drewski |
I’m no fan of any losses of freedom so to speak, but this is one thing I am definitely in favour of. I’ll gladly get delayed an extra 2 minutes on a traffic stop to help get a couple more drunk drivers off the road.
|
They check for marijuana impairment too correct?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Bet if they added a mandatory DNA sample to compare to their evidence banks, they might solve a few cold cases as well... |
Quote:
it's a slippery slope. Why not take our guns away as that will save lives.... how can you not support something if it means saving a life?? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Guns do not serve a useful purpose to many. Drinking does not serve a purpose for many. Guns serve a purpose to many. It depends on you view of the situation. Impaired driving is not acceptable, nor is killing a human. |
Quote:
Anyone that goes along with these Gestapo ideas deserve every little piece of crap that that is coming down the pipe. You guys are just suckers that think this is ok in any fashion. Did you know that the cops can now demand a breath test on someone who may have been driving 2 hours ago? This is all disgusting. |
I know more than one person who has completed their blowbox time and is back to their old ways so I can't argue with it.
One figures he should drive because he can't walk he's too drunk. The other argued that he had his constitutional rights infringed when the cop asked him to blow because he had cans rolling around in his box and floorboard. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I certainly can’t profess to speak for you, but I’m my opinion I’d be a lot more Concerned if someone I loved was killed by an impaired driver that was pulled over 20 minutes earlier but for whatever reason the cop didn’t have reasonable grounds to make them blow than I would be with a 2 minute inconvenience of blowing if I get pulled over. To liken it to guns......no one is saying don’t drink anymore than someone is saying we can’t own guns. If your drinking take a cab, if your shooting do it within the confines of the law. Unfortunately there isn’t a like comparison between guns and random breath tests as they are fundamentally different things, but owning a gun is more like holding a drivers license. You need to be licensed for both, pass tests to legally do both, etc. Then, there is a set of laws to abide by to do both legally......and law enforcement have ways of ensuring that we are legally doing both. |
More people die or are injured from excessive speed and distracted driving than impaired drivers. But many more people continue to drive fast and distracted. Why is the punishment so different for each?
|
Quote:
Anything to get drunks or impaired slobs off the road.....:sHa_shakeshout: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I recently had to blow, at a check stop. He asked if I had anything to drink, answering honestly I told the officer that I had 2 glasses of wine with supper. (We were returning home from dining out).
I blew .02%. Perfectly legal. Didn't need the lecture that followed, considering I hadn't broken any laws. You cant target one group and condone others. Put police in unmarked vehicles and stop all the texting drivers, that'll save way more lives. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone driving impaired, but I should be able to have a social drink without feeling like a criminal. Craig Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk |
Quote:
Regarding the demand for a breath sample after the fact, there needs to be reasonable cause period. So a driver does a hit and run causing bodily harm to someone you know, makes it home before the police can track the vehicle down... Pretty good cause to take a breath sample at their residence would it not ? They are not going to 'target' anyone, take the tin foil off and limit your consumption while behind the wheel. |
In 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
If you apply "liberal logic" or "LL"to the above statistics, then 72% of deaths are caused by people who are not drinking. "LL" shows that people should be required to drink before driving. No. I am am not in favour of drinking and driving just showing how statistics can be misinterpreted. |
If the goal is to save lives theres lots of ways our govt can do this. How about banning fast food. Theres a major obesity problem. How about a ban on smoking?? We already know this kills lots of people every year. We should take it a step further and ban phones in cars as distracted driving is the biggest issue on the road.
We can use the arguement that any new law is good because it saves lives... so why stop with the drinking and driving laws?? Using guns is the perfect analogy to this law as theres a huge segment of the population who are anti gun and who believe removing our gun rights will save lives.... it's already happening. |
Think this bad? Just wait a few years.
Quote:
While getting drunks off the road and stopping the carnage caused by impaired driving is a just and noble cause, this imperfect legislation is another step in the long torturous road to a socialist police state. Once society has accepted the idea that innocence is not the default state under current law, it will be easier for legislators to enact even more abhorrent laws in the future. They will argue that the precedent of guilty until proven innocent has existed since 2018, and can now be applied to other areas of societal control. :angry3: Don't underestimate the enemy; they walk among us. |
Quote:
i get what some of you are saying but there are a lot of things we need to do to prove we are not breaking the law . this is just one more . if you have insurance you still need to provide proof when asked . same for fishing license , drivers license , etc . roadside sobriety test is fine by me . checking up to two hours after driving , however , is going to have some uphill battles in court , as it should . |
Quote:
|
My 21 yr old son has a GF who lives south of Spruce Grove. Coming home on the weekend at 1:30 am, the RC pulled him over at a red light in SG. Said his Tail lights were not working. Then proceeded to check his drivers licence and gave him a breathalyzer. Did advise him this was a new law and they have the right to ask for the test without cause. Drives an older Mazda 3 so you still have to turn on your headlights to see at night.
I'm fine with the breathalyzer check during the stop but his lights were working fine before, during and after. Clean record and not drinking so he was on his way pretty quick. He did nothing wrong but got stopped for being a young guy is my guess. |
:party0052:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.