|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 9, 2009 12:59:21 GMT -5
What a terrible waste. =============================================================== Drunk driver gets life, but not dangerous-offender tag
By Sidhartha Banerjee, THE CANADIAN PRESS SALABERRY-DE-VALLEYFIELD, Que. - It's not the sentence they were looking for, but Crown prosecutors say a legal precedent was still set Wednesday. A Canadian court has, for the first time ever, sentenced a drunk driver to life in prison, said Crown lawyer Joey Davis. Roger Walsh, 57, was handed the ruling in a courtroom west of Montreal. He pleaded guilty to mowing down a wheelchair-bound woman last year after a night of binge drinking. It was his 19th drunk-driving conviction. Quebec court judge Michel Mercier declared the man incorrigible and said he would be likely to reoffend. But he did not hand prosecutors the legal prize they were hoping for: dangerous offender status for Walsh. The Crown had been seeking to make Walsh the first Canadian subjected to that designation for drunk driving. The judge concluded that the designation - which has been reserved for the worst criminals, like murderers and serial rapists - did not apply in this case. In practical terms, however, Wednesday's sentence could wind up being just as harsh. Walsh would have had a chance, either way, to seek parole after seven years; the difference with dangerous offenders is that once they're freed they're monitored more strictly and, if they reoffend, they can then be locked up indefinitely. Prosecutors have now tried on three occasions - including in Ontario and Alberta - but no Canadian judge has ever granted a dangerous offender tag for an impaired driving conviction. The Crown had been hopeful that they could make history in this case, thanks to recent changes changes in federal law that might have made it easier to get the label applied. Walsh pleaded guilty last December running down Anee Khudaverdian in October 2008 after a night of heavy drinking. The wheelchair-bound mother was out with her dog, on her 47th birthday. The Crown was hopeful it might get the dangerous-offender tag to stick, thanks to a 2008 Criminal Code amendment. With an absence of jurisprudence for applying the status in cases like this, the judge says he examined transcripts from the debate in Parliament last year when the Criminal Code was amended. "It's clear that the intent of the legislator was not to include the infraction committed by the accused under the definition of dangerous offender," Mercier wrote, saying it wasn't up to him to change the law. The 2008 change allows prosecutors to seek the dangerous offender status with a lengthy prison term - 20 years, followed by 10 years of close surveillance - as opposed to an indeterminate prison sentence. It was introduced in the Tories' Tackling Violent Crime Act. Under the old rules, the dangerous-offender designation automatically meant an indefinite prison stay and was reserved for the worst violent criminals. Now, someone with the designation can get a fixed prison sentence - but if they breach conditions once they're freed, they could be thrown back in jail indefinitely. Walsh's lawyer, Jacques Vinet, had proposed a 10-year sentence. Anee Khudaverdian was propelled into a ditch after being struck by the minivan. Walsh kept driving and was arrested less than 10 kilometres away after driving into a ditch himself. The court had heard that Walsh had more than double the legal blood-alcohol limit of .08 in his system. Walsh's 18 previous impaired driving convictions and 114 previous convictions in total for assault, uttering threats, breaking and entering and theft were entered into evidence. The victim's sister was pleased with the verdict. "We still made history today, we made history for my sister," said Clara Khudaverdian. "We didn't get dangerous offender and, in this case, I think it was difficult for the judge to render the decision because the law is unclear." She said she wished politicians would clarify their intentions about when the dangerous-offender label should apply. In addition to the life sentence, Walsh was also sentenced to two years for the additional charges he faced - hit and run causing death and probation violations. He won't be allowed behind the wheel of a car ever again. Walsh's lawyer Jacques Vinet said it was a surprising sentence because, in terms of prison years, the judge handed down more than what either the defence or Crown had asked for. Vinet said he wasn't surprised the attempt at dangerous-offender status failed. He said he would discuss with his client whether to appeal the sentence. cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/09/09/10801091-cp.html (link) |
|
|
|
Post by habernac on Sept 9, 2009 16:26:50 GMT -5
19? Seriously, how lax is the system by letting this guy get into the double digits?  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 9, 2009 17:08:47 GMT -5
19? Seriously, how lax is the system by letting this guy get into the double digits? Exactly my thoughts, habernac. How does he get past 5, let alone 10, then 15? It's absolutely ridiculous. He had to kill somebody first. But let's set up speed traps in zones where they know it's like shooting fish in a barrel.  (Different departments, I know.....but still traffic-related offenses......and "priorities".) |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 9, 2009 19:20:42 GMT -5
HC, I've heard of the double digits reference before. It was in the early 80's and I won't mention the city I was living in at the time. A good friend of mine pointed out that there were drivers who were 'routinely' busted for impaired driving.
They'd show up to the courthouse, receive their punishment from the judge, leave the court, get right back into their cars and drive back to where they lived in the country.
No guff!
The man obviously won't change his ways. I think the dangerous offender tag might be a good one in this instance.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 10, 2009 0:45:04 GMT -5
Yeah, I think the tolerance level in general has to really come down against impaired drivers and the civil rights movement has to accept that drunk drivers have given up many of their 'rights'. Locally, a few years ago, this guy working at a saw mill hit another car along the Transcanada, on his way home, killing a woman. It was his 13th conviction or so. Double figures anyway. His employers fired him, then ended up having to reinstate his employment. Go figger. Here's a guy who is potentially a risk to every employee at that mill and his 'civil rights' ensured those fellow workers continued to be in danger. You'd think a workplace 'accident' would have occurred at some point, but no such luck.
Forbidding the guy from driving is a joke, because you can't enforce it without cutting off his hands and feet. Hmmmm......maybe the Saudis are on to something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 10, 2009 5:06:07 GMT -5
I don't want to make light of this ... but whoopie ... a precedent is set, only problem is its 19 infractions of the offense where the last one causes death. It's not like judges will be referring to this case if someone gets killed by someone who gets caught behind the wheel drunk for the first time .... There was a guy here earlier this summer who was pulled over and determined to be driving over the legal limit. After he was released from custody, the police caught him driving drunk again ON THE SAME DAY!!!!! Likely to reoffend. Ya think??? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 10, 2009 9:25:34 GMT -5
While I applaud the heavy sentence, like Skilly and others I wonder why it took 19 convictions to get to this point. The answer, at least in my opinion, is that our justice system isn't nearly harsh enough.
Harsh - maybe harsh isn't the right word. I'm not of the opinion that we should go back to flogging prisoners. I think chain gangs - done correctly - wouldn't be a bad idea. But that's not really the tack I'm on. Serious perhaps is a better word.
Take the example of the drunk driver for a second. Right now if he has a suspended license and he drives he gets dinged for that - a minor felony. If he drives drunk he gets dinged for that a serious crime, but still not a major felony.
However, IMHO if you hold a suspended license you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a car period (excepting extreme life or death circumstances). And if you do one of two things happened - a friend (or family member) allowed you to use their car or you took a car without anyone's permission. If I were king criminals would be assumed to be the latter, and would also be dinged for grand theft auto (or whatever the proper legal term is - theft of a vehicle with the intent to use it in committing a felony). If they could prove that a friend or family member loaned them a care then they would be charged with accessory to the crime, and also thrown in Jail (potentially with a longer jail term than the drunk). Although I doubt the drunk driver would think twice about his actions, it may mean a longer jail term for him. It may also make his buddies think twice about letting him take their car.
But sadly our soft "justice" system doesn't see things this way. And while Mr. Walsh may get life for his crime, how many other lives were harmed because of his actions? How many of those harms could've been prevented?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 10, 2009 9:45:58 GMT -5
Khudaverdian was thrown twenty metres through the air from her destroyed wheelchair. She died instantly, leaving behind a husband and young daughter. The van that had killed her drove on before crashing into a ditch five miles down the road. The driver, to no one's surprise, was drunk, with a blood alcohol level more than twice the legal limit.
What did surprise some, however, was that this was not the first time the driver had been involved in a drunk driving incident. It wasn't even the third or fourth. The driver, Roger Walsh, had in fact already been sentenced eighteen times for impaired driving. This was on top of a further 114 other criminal convictions, for offences including theft, breaking and entering, uttering threats, and assault. After been being granted a grand total of 132 second chances, Walsh had finally done it. He'd killed a human being.
---
The whole issue of drunk driving in Canada has become a muddled mess. In Ontario, the crusade to make the roads safer has led to people being punished for breaking no law and will soon see fines levied for changing a song on your iPod. Meanwhile, detestable drunks like Walsh skate through the system virtually untouched until they take a life, and are still somehow not classed as dangerous offenders. The time is long past for Canadian governments at both the federal and provincial level to get serious about actually making the roads safer. Matt Gurney, National Post editorial board
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 10, 2009 9:51:06 GMT -5
However, IMHO if you hold a suspended license you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a car period (excepting extreme life or death circumstances). I believe you are not allowed behind the wheel if you hold a suspended license . . . but that doesn't necessarily stop anyone! I remember a few years back that the police had a "safe driving" emphasis . . . if they saw you driving safely they would pull you over and give you a prize [gift certificate for a restaurant, etc].
They followed one guy and he was absolutely perfect . . . put the blinkers on well in advance, etc . . . you know, all the little things that we forget. Turns out that he had noticed the police following him, and because he was driving with a suspended license he didn't want to get pulled over so drove super-cautiously. [didn't work, and he was hauled off] |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 10, 2009 10:21:15 GMT -5
However, IMHO if you hold a suspended license you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a car period (excepting extreme life or death circumstances). I believe you are not allowed behind the wheel if you hold a suspended license . . . but that doesn't necessarily stop anyone! Which is what the rest of my mini-rant was about. How to make it so that getting behind the wheel (except in the most dire of circumstance) unpalatable for all but the most callous of drunks, and how to keep their friends - those that would normally turn a blind eye to such activities - from being enablers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 10, 2009 12:09:19 GMT -5
There was a guy here earlier this summer who was pulled over and determined to be driving over the legal limit. After he was released from custody, the police caught him driving drunk again ON THE SAME DAY!!!!! Likely to reoffend. Ya think??? The "reoffending" part is the big issue with me, Skilly. It doesn't matter how much you hammer it home, some folks simply don't take it seriously. In this case the guy was given umpteen second chances. He proved many times before that he simply won't change and THAT is the kicker here, IMO. A quick example (the figures might be wrong because I can't recall the entire story): It was back in the 80's when I read a McLean's magazine article that compared the sentences between a convicted murderer and a convicted pot dealer. The murderer was given parole after 12 years of his sentence; however, the pot dealer was made to serve his entire 20-year sentence. Why? Because the dealer admitted that if he ever got out he'd go back into the business in a flash; it was that lucrative. The murderer, OTOH, proved that he had learned from his mistake and showed more remorse for what he had done (I honestly don't know if he reoffended or not, though). In this case I really think the 'dangerous offender tag' is warranted. TNG asked, how many other people did this guy hurt with his crime(s)? They simply should have locked him up years ago. At least there they'd probably be able to find out what causes him to drink and deal with those issues too. There's no guarantee he'll stay sober, granted, but still ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 10, 2009 12:43:10 GMT -5
However, IMHO if you hold a suspended license you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a car period (excepting extreme life or death circumstances). I believe you are not allowed behind the wheel if you hold a suspended license . . . but that doesn't necessarily stop anyone! I remember a few years back that the police had a "safe driving" emphasis . . . if they saw you driving safely they would pull you over and give you a prize [gift certificate for a restaurant, etc].
They followed one guy and he was absolutely perfect . . . put the blinkers on well in advance, etc . . . you know, all the little things that we forget. Turns out that he had noticed the police following him, and because he was driving with a suspended license he didn't want to get pulled over so drove super-cautiously. [didn't work, and he was hauled off]A very quick story (well not really). Living in the Ottawa area you may remember Rideau Correctional and Treatment Centre near Burritts Rapids (minimum security). I went to visit a friend who was incarcerated there for driving under the influence. I only found out later how this one played out: * He was already under suspension for the same offence at the time, * Realizing he was about to be pulled over, he gunned it instead of just pulling over, * He ended up off the road in a field and when the police caught up to him he did not go quietly, * The judge gave him a six-month sentence in Rideau; however there was a chance he could get out after two months if he kept his nose clean and if he had an employer willing to hire him. They also thought they needed the facility for more violent criminals, * Or so he and his lawyer thought, * The judge refused to even hear it come up and he ended up serving his full six months. As I was saying, I went to see him at one point. I wasn't allowed to give him any novels, magazines, food ... nothing. The greeting area consisted of two rows of tables and chairs facing each other separated by a small pane of Plexiglas just about eye-level. One one side were the inmates; generally young men either in their late-teens or early-to-mid-20's (I'm serious) all dressed in blue coveralls. On the other side were friends and what seemed to be family members. One was an older couple who looked like they were talking to their son on the other side. I remember the facial expressions on both sides. My friend finally came out 45 minutes after I got there. He was dressed in jeans and t-shirt and waived as soon as he saw me. He was led behind a wall to an area where he was searched and made to change. He re-emerged wearing blue coveralls and runners with no laces. I reached over the Plexiglas and shook his hand. He immediately flashed his hand to the staff to show them I had not passed anything to him. I could only spend about 30 minutes with him because he didn't want to miss supper. But, he told me two things before going through his search and quick-change drill again: * Thanks for coming up. That was 'effin' nice! * You don't ever want to come here. I have no freedom at all. The last statement told me that the facility was doing a pretty good job. But, it also told me that my buddy might have been learning his lesson. He moved to where he originally came from down to Southern Ontario after he was released. I learned a heck of a lot just by visiting the facility. Hopefully he learned a lot too. I'll never know though; haven't heard from him since that visit. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Sept 10, 2009 14:43:13 GMT -5
I have nothing bad to say in regards to drunk driving 19 times or how it is bad in general and totally agree with the sentence. My beef is with the alcohol tolerable limit. Technically if you use mouth wash in the morning and get pulled over in the next 15 minutes, you will be over the limit. I am not going to go all saintly on you but I've drank 2 beers and driven home. If I got stopped, according to the law I should be charged and I think that isn't right. There is a difference between a social drink (having a beer with supper) and binge drinking and that is where there should be more flexibility in regards to todays laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 10, 2009 15:50:58 GMT -5
I have nothing bad to say in regards to drunk driving 19 times or how it is bad in general and totally agree with the sentence. My beef is with the alcohol tolerable limit. Technically if you use mouth wash in the morning and get pulled over in the next 15 minutes, you will be over the limit. I am not going to go all saintly on you but I've drank 2 beers and driven home. If I got stopped, according to the law I should be charged and I think that isn't right. There is a difference between a social drink (having a beer with supper) and binge drinking and that is where there should be more flexibility in regards to todays laws. Actually, although I am not certain, I do not believe you can be charged with anything for blowing over the legal limit on a road side test. The reason being is that the portable units which officers carry in their cars are prone to errors, and any error - even a slight one - can lead to results being thrown out of court as being unreliable. You can, however, be arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. At which point they take you back to the station and make you blow into a full-sized machine which does a much better, and significantly more accurate job of gauging your BAC. They also will probably do it multiple times - multiple samples means they get to establish a finite margin of error and dispel all doubt. As for your statement - well, not to put to fine a point on it, but your opinion in the matter is wrong. You might not be impaired after two drinks (and although I do not know you I have to say I doubt that to be the case - after one drink even the largest, hardest drinker is impaired slightly) but the average person is. And the police have no reason to think you to be anything but an average person. And so, if you blow over 0.05 on the GC machine (the large one in the main office, not the inaccurate hand-held unit) you deserve you own fate. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 10, 2009 16:06:21 GMT -5
Do I mention here that the 19-timer obviously knew his way around the system? It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a non-drinker can tell you how to get around the whole DUI thing [but I'm not going to do it  ] |
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Sept 10, 2009 16:19:36 GMT -5
I was only saying my opinion, and obviously not everyone will agree with me on it. A 4.1% beer drunk roughly in 30 mins by a guy over 6'0" weighing 225 and eating a meal is going to have no affect on a persons driving. I can't provide statistical facts to back me up but I do have a few friends that are cops that suggested that it wouldn't even register. As you said, the machines are not accurate, and by the time anyone is taken "downtime" the alcholol content will have gone through your system. As for being arrested on suspicion, yes that is true, but if you had one then you must be driving pretty irradicately to be pulled over.
On to the main topic, yes 19 times is way to much. 1 time is too much. I think the legal system is just as much to blame.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 10, 2009 16:50:43 GMT -5
I have nothing bad to say in regards to drunk driving 19 times or how it is bad in general and totally agree with the sentence. My beef is with the alcohol tolerable limit. Technically if you use mouth wash in the morning and get pulled over in the next 15 minutes, you will be over the limit. I am not going to go all saintly on you but I've drank 2 beers and driven home. If I got stopped, according to the law I should be charged and I think that isn't right. There is a difference between a social drink (having a beer with supper) and binge drinking and that is where there should be more flexibility in regards to todays laws. There is a difference in social drinking and binging, you're right TD. I know this because a soldier who worked for me blew over one night after only having 3 beer (so he said and I believed him). He spread out the beer over a reasonable period and then downed his last mouthful before heading to his car. He was stopped on the base for whatever the reason and blew slightly over. On went the cuffs and away they went to the military police station. However, the lawyer he had understood that each of the police services in the area; Military Police, Kingston City Police, OPP and RCMP, all calibrated their breathalizers differently. If the young guy blew slightly over, he could beat it in court. Well, I guess he beat that charge, but he was charged with dangerous driving instead. What I found odd was that he could still blow over the limit even though he was given several tests. He must have had the initial test there on the roadside. Then they have to take him to the station, calibrate their machine, do the test again and from what I understand there might also be a second test done on the same machine 20 minutes later. Now, I'm really not sure of my facts I have to be honest. However, if this was so, then I find it odd he still blew over if it was just a "one last gulp in his glass." Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 10, 2009 21:16:33 GMT -5
Don't the police have the right to supoena a person to submit to a blood test .... no "calibration" problems then.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Sept 11, 2009 0:47:30 GMT -5
I was only saying my opinion, and obviously not everyone will agree with me on it. A 4.1% beer drunk roughly in 30 mins by a guy over 6'0" weighing 225 and eating a meal is going to have no affect on a persons driving. I can't provide statistical facts to back me up but I do have a few friends that are cops that suggested that it wouldn't even register. According to the U. of Oklahoma Police, that guy would have a BAC of around .02, which they designate as "possible impairment." That's not enough to get you arrested in Canada, but it is in at least 9 other countries (according to Wikipedia). And eating a meal, at most, only delays the impairment a little, it doesn't make you less impaired. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 11, 2009 10:28:01 GMT -5
According to the U. of Oklahoma Police, that guy would have a BAC of around .02, which they designate as "possible impairment." That's not enough to get you arrested in Canada, but it is in at least 9 other countries (according to Wikipedia). And eating a meal, at most, only delays the impairment a little, it doesn't make you less impaired. Eating a meal can spread out the manner in which the alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream (i.e. over a longer duratioN), which allows the liver to metabolise a larger percentage of the alcohol in your bloodstream (it metabolizes at the same rate, but proportionally this is higher since the overall level is lower) and as such can keep your impairment level lower. How much lower, is a question I can't answer. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 11, 2009 10:34:34 GMT -5
I was only saying my opinion, and obviously not everyone will agree with me on it. A 4.1% beer drunk roughly in 30 mins by a guy over 6'0" weighing 225 and eating a meal is going to have no affect on a persons driving. I can't provide statistical facts to back me up but I do have a few friends that are cops that suggested that it wouldn't even register. I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive. It's not my purpose to indict or judge you, but this is something I feel very strongly about. And I'm very polemic. In any case, any amount of alcohol in the blood-stream causes impairment - that's a fact. The question is at what point so it become significant (i.e. does the impairment become more than being slightly overtired, or being a poor driver). And the law has suggested that the threshold for that is .05. If you drink one beer, and you are confident that you are below that threshold, that's fine. But realize that you're playing dice with the devil and your license is the wager. As you said, the machines are not accurate, and by the time anyone is taken "downtime" the alcholol content will have gone through your system. As for being arrested on suspicion, yes that is true, but if you had one then you must be driving pretty irradicately to be pulled over. Arrested != charged. Arrested means the police have a reason to detain you. Charged means the police think the can prove under rules of evidence that you are guilty of a crime. Which is why lots of people are arrested under suspicion of drunk driving and let go - if you blow a .05 at a road side stop and they take you back, by the time you actually blow into a proper gas chromatography machine (the real breathalyzer) you'll be under. And they'll have to let you go(or at the worst charge you with dangerous driving). The system is designed to give you all the chances in the world to prove yourself innocent. However if you do something foolish - and driving after drinking qualifies as foolish - you are apt to get nicked for it. On to the main topic, yes 19 times is way to much. 1 time is too much. I think the legal system is just as much to blame. Why? Because you have to be driving erratically (excluding the occasional long weekend when they stop everyone and their dog) to get pulled over? Because once you're pulled over you have a chance to prove your BAC is within acceptable standard by blowing on a portable machine. Because if you fail that they give you time to dry out before they test you with a highly accurate device? Sorry - if anything the problem is the system is too lenient on drivers. It's quite simple really. If you want to drink, make sure you are not driving. If you want to drive, don't drink. If I went out to a large shopping centre and started firing a shotgun into the air I probably wouldn't hurt anyone (if I'm careful) but you can be damn sure the police would come and take me away anyway. Why? Because I'm engaging in dangerous behavior. If you get behind the wheel of a car after drinking - even after one drink - you are engaging in dangerous behavior. With an implement that can easily (and often) result in death if misused. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 11, 2009 10:36:20 GMT -5
I know this because a soldier who worked for me blew over one night after only having 3 beer (so he said and I believed him). He spread out the beer over a reasonable period and then downed his last mouthful before heading to his car. He was stopped on the base for whatever the reason and blew slightly over. On went the cuffs and away they went to the military police station. However, the lawyer he had understood that each of the police services in the area; Military Police, Kingston City Police, OPP and RCMP, all calibrated their breathalizers differently. If the young guy blew slightly over, he could beat it in court. Well, I guess he beat that charge, but he was charged with dangerous driving instead. What I found odd was that he could still blow over the limit even though he was given several tests. He must have had the initial test there on the roadside. Then they have to take him to the station, calibrate their machine, do the test again and from what I understand there might also be a second test done on the same machine 20 minutes later. Now, I'm really not sure of my facts I have to be honest. However, if this was so, then I find it odd he still blew over if it was just a "one last gulp in his glass." Cheers. That's a crazy story Dis. I drank half a pitcher of Kronenbourg 1664 (about 1.5 pints) last night with a buddy during the first half of the football game (about 1.5-2 hours). On the way home there was a RIDE program so I had to blow, and I registered a 0.02. Well within the limit and when I told the officer I was headed home he let me go on my way. It would have to be a heck of a last gulp to jump up over 0.08. Either that, or your soldier is about 5'3 and his liver doesn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 11, 2009 10:43:48 GMT -5
I was only saying my opinion, and obviously not everyone will agree with me on it. A 4.1% beer drunk roughly in 30 mins by a guy over 6'0" weighing 225 and eating a meal is going to have no affect on a persons driving. I can't provide statistical facts to back me up but I do have a few friends that are cops that suggested that it wouldn't even register. I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive. It's not my purpose to indict or judge you, but this is something I feel very strongly about. And I'm very polemic. In any case, any amount of alcohol in the blood-stream causes impairment - that's a fact. The question is at what point so it become significant (i.e. does the impairment become more than being slightly overtired, or being a poor driver). And the law has suggested that the threshold for that is .05. If you drink one beer, and you are confident that you are below that threshold, that's fine. But realize that you're playing dice with the devil and your license is the wager. Actually the law in Ontario suggests that it's 0.08. There is no law with regard to 0.05, only regulations. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Sept 11, 2009 11:02:22 GMT -5
If you get behind the wheel of a car after drinking - even after one drink - you are engaging in dangerous behavior. With an implement that can easily (and often) result in death if misused. The act of licensing our citizens to operate a motor vehicle is engaging in dangerous behaviour. Most drivers have no business behind the wheel of a car; even sober. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 11, 2009 11:16:57 GMT -5
Listen -- if you don't like the way I drive stay off the sidewalk!
In all seriousness this is a serious matter.
My father was killed in a drunk driving accident. He was the drunk. I was 12. The oldest of 5 kids. Messed up everyone and everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 11, 2009 12:40:07 GMT -5
Actually the law in Ontario suggests that it's 0.08. There is no law with regard to 0.05, only regulations. Read the Highway Traffic Act (which is a law, in the same way that it's the law to stop at a stop sign or a red light - all of which are governed under the same act). The suspension is termed an administrative suspension (because it does not require a court proceeding - you blow over the limit on an approved and calibrated screening device and you lose you license for three, seven or thirty days depending on the number of times you've been busted before). It's still the law unless your definition of the law only include the criminal code of Canada. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 11, 2009 12:47:31 GMT -5
I know this because a soldier who worked for me blew over one night after only having 3 beer (so he said and I believed him). He spread out the beer over a reasonable period and then downed his last mouthful before heading to his car. He was stopped on the base for whatever the reason and blew slightly over. On went the cuffs and away they went to the military police station. However, the lawyer he had understood that each of the police services in the area; Military Police, Kingston City Police, OPP and RCMP, all calibrated their breathalizers differently. If the young guy blew slightly over, he could beat it in court. Well, I guess he beat that charge, but he was charged with dangerous driving instead. What I found odd was that he could still blow over the limit even though he was given several tests. He must have had the initial test there on the roadside. Then they have to take him to the station, calibrate their machine, do the test again and from what I understand there might also be a second test done on the same machine 20 minutes later. Now, I'm really not sure of my facts I have to be honest. However, if this was so, then I find it odd he still blew over if it was just a "one last gulp in his glass." Cheers. That's a crazy story Dis. I drank half a pitcher of Kronenbourg 1664 (about 1.5 pints) last night with a buddy during the first half of the football game (about 1.5-2 hours). On the way home there was a RIDE program so I had to blow, and I registered a 0.02. Well within the limit and when I told the officer I was headed home he let me go on my way. It would have to be a heck of a last gulp to jump up over 0.08. Either that, or your soldier is about 5'3 and his liver doesn't work. Well, this is it, Red. Being the guy's Warrant Officer, the only thing I asked of my troop was that if they got into any hot water, let me know asap. Don't let me find out through the backdoor. So, when the young guy came into my office and blurted what happened to him, my first impulse is to believe and support my soldier. However, after finding out the process they use to determine and confirm sobriety I really had second thoughts. Here's what the young told me: * Last gulp of beer; the third he had all night (so he said, ok, fine) * Being stopped on the base for 'whatever' the reason (really can't remember) * Doing a breathalizer with the MP on the spot. Being handcuffed and placed in the back of the police cruiser * Being taken to the MP station and being made to stand at attention about a foot away facing the wall. * Doing another breathalizer at the station (might have been two, Red, I really can't remember ... but I've been told since that if he do two there it would only be procedure). * Calling the on-duty JAG lawyer who told him to "say nothing." * Reporting into my office early on Monday morning after taking a cab into work (fessed up and told me as soon as he could ... major bonus points) As for that pitcher of Kronenbourg, it really tells me a lot. A few years back that might have been 2/3 pitchers depending just how pumped we'd get through that football game. It's taken years of hammering into the public to get the message that "moderation is the key ... drink responsibly." Yet there are many who will simply "run the gaunlet" after quaffing a few wets. One more story (sorry). I was serving at a mess dinner at the Officer's Mess in Germany back in 86/87. These are formal affairs with the officers wearing mess kit (scarlet doeskin tunics usually) with the women in formal evening gowns. There's drinking throughout the meal; red and white wine, port (for the toasts) and lots of beer and shooters before and after the meal. After the meal some of us were asked to stick around to provide 'support' to the officers who needed it. I remember two young officers downing shooters and going over to the portable breathalizer each time to see who could blow the highest reading. I volunteered to stay behind until I saw this. No one even noticed I was gone. I don't know if they drove themselves home or not, but I know some who would have back then. Also, it's one thing to pace yourself and blow slightly over like you did. But, there are lots and lots of folks out there, who every Friday afternoon, will stop off at the pub on the way home from work, have 2 beer and "one for the ditch" before heading home for supper. They're not drunk, far from it. But depending how quickly the stop was they're going to blow over. Hate ending this like another bad novel, but I have to run. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 11, 2009 12:57:21 GMT -5
If you get behind the wheel of a car after drinking - even after one drink - you are engaging in dangerous behavior. With an implement that can easily (and often) result in death if misused. The act of licensing our citizens to operate a motor vehicle is engaging in dangerous behaviour. Most drivers have no business behind the wheel of a car; even sober. It's also dangerous to allow people to use knives. They can do severe damage even when used by people of reasonably sound judgment (I once stabbed someone during a job interview - the job was selling knives door to door and I was little too vigorous in my attempted demonstration). However there's a risk factor. The people who figure these things figure the convenience of knives (and cars) out weighs the risks of people owning them With cars they take the extra step of licensing them (to make sure they're not an absolute mess) but it's still playing with percentages and odds. That's why they allow you a BAC up to 0.05 (except in BC - where's it's 0.00 - Quebec - where it's tied to the criminal code - Saskatchewan - where it's 0.04 - and the Yukon - where they can suspend your license simply for the suspicion of drunk driving). It's likely that if you have a BAC under that threshold the amount of alcohol in your blood stream will impair you less than any number of other possible distractions/impairments. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Sept 11, 2009 21:01:06 GMT -5
(except in BC - where's it's 0.00 I believe that is only for people with a learner's or novice license. Otherwise it's .05. That only supports CO's point. People who are sleep deprived or using a cell phone probably shouldn't be driving. |
|
]
