You are in error as usual. Just because I would not like the system changed to accommodate your jack-booted hang em high view, does not mean I don't think the system shouldn't be changed. Unlike you, I'm a goal focused individual. It is possible to make our roads safer without taking away our rights. Is your goal to make our roads safer or is it to punish people that do what you don't like?
Good News About BC's Drunk Drivers
- Thread starter Mowich
- Start date
You are in error as usual. Just because I would not like the system changed to accommodate your jack-booted hang em high view, does not mean I don't think the system shouldn't be changed. Unlike you, I'm a goal focused individual. It is possible to make our roads safer without taking away our rights. Is your goal to make our roads safer or is it to punish people that do what you don't like?
If it brings even one other person to their senses, then telling such a shameful story will be well worth it.
I know a couple of people around here who think having the 'odd beer' and driving is almost their god-given right. Talking to them about the dangers is akin to talking to a brick wall.
That incident I recounted scared me so much I quit drinking altogether for over a year as I figured I was on the road to alcoholism. When I did start having the occasional drink again, that is all it was, an occasional drink. I also made sure that I never got in a car with anyone who had been drinking and often found myself as the designated driver - a role I was more than happy to assume.
Why should we fill up our courtrooms with drunk drivers? You blow over the limit - you are guilty.
I have been loosely following the story of the BC woman who killed the young girl and badly injured her aunt while she was drunk - sorry I don't remember the woman's name. She was back in court last week trying to appeal her conviction - have not heard the outcome yet but I can't help but think that she must have some serious character flaws as she continues to say that she is innocent. The only innocent in that story is the child - and she is dead.
Stupid fricken question!
Mowich;1509482 I have been loosely following the story of the BC woman who killed the young girl and badly injured her aunt while she was drunk - sorry I don't remember the woman's name. She was back in court last week trying to appeal her conviction - have not heard the outcome yet but I can't help but think that she must have some serious character flaws as she continues to say that she is innocent. The only innocent in that story is the child - and she is dead.[/QUOTE said:
Why is it that every time you can't answer a question, you think it's stupid?
Clearly, you have no idea how the process works.
Sorry for my prior laziness in not looking up her name, JLM. It is Carol Berner. The child she killed was four-year-old Alexa Middelaer. She was also responsible for seriously injuring the child's aunt Daphne Johanson.
Two and a half years was the length of her sentence - albeit the longest term the judge could impose - and still she is fighting the sentence and is out on bail pending the appeal. Meanwhile a four-year-old child is dead and her aunt is still dealing with the injuries she received.
This question is equally as stupid. Did you read the O.P. or did you just wade in with another similar to your previous 7000 pieces of wisdom? Point in the O.P. was that the figures verify decrease in deaths since stricter laws were introduced. I was responding to the O.P. based on that premise. It's up to you if you don't agree with the premise to provide a link proving otherwise. So I'll reiterate, I want a safe driving environment, and no, drinking is not an activity I disapprove of.......................I just don't happen to think it should be done prior to driving and I've already explained in detail why in a response to Mowich's post. Perhaps you need an I.Q. upgrade.
"Processes" don't work, people, invoke them to make them work! :lol:
I'm well aware of what the OP says. Banning cars would also reduce drunk driving. The question is what extent we are willing to go. I favour due process and you don't. I'm just wondering how you would feel if you were the victim of your own logic.
The reality is that there are other ways to make the roads safer and eliminate the threat of drunk drivers. It's unfortunate that people like you favour removing rights to do so. I do so hate a police state.
I guess it's just not Carol Berner but quite a few in our society. People can not seem to grasp the sadness and unacceptibility of a dead child, when you're drunk and mow down a child, who care about the technicalities, like "whether the breathalyser was held in the left hand or the right hand". The moaning of bar and restaurant owners is appauling. They should start using resourcefulness to make up for the difference, like maybe improving the quality of their food and lowering their prices so people won't want to go elsewhere!
Another piece of wisdom, victim isn't the word, I eat out occasionally and when "drinks" are served I drink water or coffee. I've probably drank more in my life than you and most of your neighbours combined, you get over it, like a child gets over his yoyo.
The breathalyser test (for all intents and purposes) proves guilt or innocense. The technology isn't all that complicated! If you think not submit a citizens bill to have it otherwise!
If you want to know how to beat British Columbia's new .05 driving law........ simply be a police officer they will never be charged with it......
Actually,unless there is an accident involved , they are very rarely criminally convicted ...... no matter how drunk they are......
The judge merely suspends their sentence as long as they stay out of trouble for a year................
Actually,unless there is an accident involved , they are very rarely criminally convicted ...... no matter how drunk they are......
The judge merely suspends their sentence as long as they stay out of trouble for a year................
I wonder if some of the members posting in here, can lend me the yard stick they use to determine what Charter rights are right, and what Charter rights are wrong.
You need a program, or principles of jello to follow all the logical inconsistency in these legal threads.
You need a program, or principles of jello to follow all the logical inconsistency in these legal threads.
I think the issue is that YOU cannot grasp the idea that, just because you trot out the dead child picture, does not mean we should suspend our rights. As has been pointed out, if you truly wanted to eliminate drunk driving, you would eliminate driving. That's the way to do it.
Yes, drunk driving is wrong. Let's get over that fact. The issue is, how do we prevent it? Taking away everyone's car because you are ACCUSED of drunk driving means that, once accused of a crime, you are assumed to be guilty. So, if you like that, we'll accuse you of child abuse, and you'll be prevented from seeing any of your family, and locked up, because 'innocent until proven guilty' no longer applies. To be accused is to be guilty. End of story, have a nice sleep on your steel bunk.
On the plus side the punishment they suffer via the media probably is worse than anything the judge could hand down anyway. Anyone heard an update on Monty Robinson, the thug at Vancouver Airport who killed the guy on the motorcycle (and then walked home to have a few drinks to calm his nerves before reporting it? Is he still drawing wages? :lol:
Umm, the logic there escapes me. I think the figures of economics would dictate driving is more important to people's lives than drinking. Would eliminating driving be fair to the person who doesn't drink? Do ALL our rights supercede another person's right to live?
I'm not sure if a "yardstick" is appropriate. Maybe we could start with the ones invoked by Mr. Trudeau and then maybe go to Mulroney.
This is why Ontario is having a problem with their stunt driving and racing laws.
Thankfully lawyers didn't rewrite the law, until after I bought a confiscated suped up Honda, at an auction.
JLM, you and I are never going to agree on this. I believe in the Charter of rights and freedoms. Consistently, unlike some of your detractors.
Nope, dropped, nice skirt kit, custom vinyl interior, 1000watt stereo system, cold air ram intake, momo rims, e tested and certified, $2000+taxes.
Draw backs, it was metallic philiputa pussy purple, with a giant bar code on both sides. What a heat score. In the three months I owned it before I painted it, I was pulled over 12 times. It's now satin black, and I never get pulled over.
The name on the vehicle package was 6" long and contained two vowels. lol. I think it was Sri Lankan.
To be honest I'm not familiar with all the individual rights and freedoms, I just see the inequalities to people. People who bilk elderly pensioners out of $tkhousands can get off with a suspended sentence, but the victim never gets his money back.