VPD union don't agree with new laws

General Law Enforcement discussion which does not fit into other channels. Post your thoughts and feelings about anything you want (LE related), or just vent those fumes about whatever is on your chest.
User avatar
Canadian Blue
King Poobah
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:37 pm
Location: Northeast Saskatchewan
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby Canadian Blue » Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:54 pm

There was a senate study done to support the fact that you are just as impaired at .05 as you are at .08.


Do you have a link to that study.

As I said before the problem is usually with the guys that do it over and over again and never get harsh penalties and since they really don't care about the law they keep on driving even with a prohib. If you want to make the roads safer get real jail time for them, or maybe just harsher penalties for criminals instead.

User avatar
mostlyharmless
Regular Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:30 am
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby mostlyharmless » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:24 pm

PPSC Lawyer wrote:I have to disagree with that. With lower body weight, two drinks over a short period of time will put you over 50mg.

Hell, at a course several years back we were encouraged to have a drink over lunch. I had two pints, and blew 56. Man that made for a long afternoon though back in class...

Yes, a 100 lb person scarfing back a couple over a short period of time may have a problem passing a screening device. As a side note, 2 pints is more than 2 drinks. I've yet to come across this on the road, but it's possible. People, if you weigh that little, conduct yourselves accordingly.
"You didn't think we give pretty women tickets? You're right, we don't."

User avatar
Alberta Blue
Sage Member
Posts: 487
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:22 pm
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby Alberta Blue » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:49 pm

Canadian Blue wrote:
Do you have a link to that study.

As I said before the problem is usually with the guys that do it over and over again and never get harsh penalties and since they really don't care about the law they keep on driving even with a prohib. If you want to make the roads safer get real jail time for them, or maybe just harsher penalties for criminals instead.


Not necessarily. I have been to numerous alcohol-involved crashes where the accused has no record.

User avatar
Mongo
Veteran Member
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:23 am
Location: Southern Ontario
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby Mongo » Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:53 pm

Alberta Blue wrote:
Canadian Blue wrote:
Do you have a link to that study.

As I said before the problem is usually with the guys that do it over and over again and never get harsh penalties and since they really don't care about the law they keep on driving even with a prohib. If you want to make the roads safer get real jail time for them, or maybe just harsher penalties for criminals instead.


Not necessarily. I have been to numerous alcohol-involved crashes where the accused has no record.

Me too.

I also don't think the penalties have much to do with the repeat offenders. Drinking driving mandatory penalties in this country are actually pretty stiff- relative to other criminal sentencing. They could always be stronger, I guess, but at least judges don't treat it as the complete laugh that they seem to think thefts, frauds and assaults are.
Did YOU build the Estadio Olimpico?

User avatar
SierraSeven
King Poobah
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:48 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby SierraSeven » Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:51 pm

Canadian Blue wrote:
There was a senate study done to support the fact that you are just as impaired at .05 as you are at .08.


Do you have a link to that study.

Here's the report.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=we ... ptVi8qYX2w

I don't have a problem at all with these warn penalties.
While you are reading this, your enemy is training.

PPSC Lawyer
Rookie Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: North of 60
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby PPSC Lawyer » Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:47 pm

mostlyharmless wrote:
PPSC Lawyer wrote:I have to disagree with that. With lower body weight, two drinks over a short period of time will put you over 50mg.

Hell, at a course several years back we were encouraged to have a drink over lunch. I had two pints, and blew 56. Man that made for a long afternoon though back in class...

Yes, a 100 lb person scarfing back a couple over a short period of time may have a problem passing a screening device. As a side note, 2 pints is more than 2 drinks. I've yet to come across this on the road, but it's possible. People, if you weigh that little, conduct yourselves accordingly.


For what it's worth, while I'm not huge, I sure aint 100lb either...
No longer with PPSC, but still 100% Crown Prosecutor.

CDM
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:18 pm
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby CDM » Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:40 am

I think the constant use of an ASD will set us up for bad case law

CDM
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:18 pm
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby CDM » Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:47 am

Some people forget to use common sense use of there training and use the ASD all the time, I have been to call at the border where the driver was clearly intox slurred speech bloodshot glossy eyes sleepy and a strong odor of liquor on their breath, and an ASD was used. :roll:

User avatar
Punisher-One
Poobah Overlord
Posts: 3772
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:59 am
Location: Redacted
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby Punisher-One » Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:07 am

CDM wrote:Some people forget to use common sense use of there training and use the ASD all the time, I have been to call at the border where the driver was clearly intox slurred speech bloodshot glossy eyes sleepy and a strong odor of liquor on their breath, and an ASD was used. :roll:


That needs to be addressed as a training issue. More emphasis needs to be put on it during training.

Safety Guy
Regular Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 8:44 pm
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby Safety Guy » Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:40 pm

PPSC Lawyer wrote:But under the Criminal Code, they're not entitled to a second blow. Remember it's only a screening test - if the ASD makes a mistake the approved instrument will give the correct result.


It's funny you mention that because I remember about 4 years ago I sat through the end of a criminal trial when the offender had been charged for failing to provide a breath sample. The guy was charged because he still couldn't (or wouldn't) blow in the Alcotest long enough for it to work despite being given 18 tries. Worst part is, the judge found him not guilty stating that the officer should have reasonalbe given him more chances. :ponder:

I don't deal with criminal code issues, only provincial offences but I still think that when it comes to drinking and driving, tougher penalties are great. And if the process is streamiled somehow getting officer back on the road faster, then that's a double bonus.
Please remember that the man makes the uniform and not the other way around.

Dudley DoRight
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1008
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:02 pm
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby Dudley DoRight » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:59 am

CDM wrote:Some people forget to use common sense use of there training and use the ASD all the time, I have been to call at the border where the driver was clearly intox slurred speech bloodshot glossy eyes sleepy and a strong odor of liquor on their breath, and an ASD was used. :roll:



I would articulate that the ASD was used to eliminate some sort of diabetic/medical/physical reason for display of the symptoms after consumption of possibly minor amounts of alcohol by the innocent driver.

User avatar
SierraSeven
King Poobah
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:48 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby SierraSeven » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:14 am

CDM wrote:Some people forget to use common sense use of there training and use the ASD all the time, I have been to call at the border where the driver was clearly intox slurred speech bloodshot glossy eyes sleepy and a strong odor of liquor on their breath, and an ASD was used. :roll:

It's unfortunate, but officers seem to rely upon the ASD in all cases for some reason. Whether it's unfamiliarity with what to do because they haven't kept up on what should be done, or because they haven't gone through the motions since training, not sure.

I don't think it's a training issue. I know what to do because of the training I received. If you have the signs of impairment, then arrest off the bat for impaired. Otherwise, make your breath demand. If on the way to the ASD you happen to notice that the guy is stumbling drunk and hadn't before, forego the ASD and arrest for impairment. Not that hard to do and it was clearly articulated in training :ponder:
While you are reading this, your enemy is training.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest