Topic: Steering You Right: Random breath tests

[Jaeger]

Fine ..again with if it saves one life its worth it argument.

I'll expect you to start protesting for prohibition ASAP then. The sale of alcohol is huige contributor to drunk driving deaths. Why not get at the cause ?

Might as well speed limit all cars to 1 km p/h, you would save thousands of automotive deaths every year on public roads.

That suggestion makes about as much sense as "Might as well do away with the whole Criminal Code because every one of its provisions limits our freedoms in some way."  In other words - it's a pretty pathetic straw man you have constructed.

And don't worry - I'm not running for office - I care far too little about what others think of me to be a politician.

Jaeger

[Rupert]

I doubt that it will be easy to find a party or MP who will admit in public that he/she is in favour of 'not' trying to cut the incidence of driving under the influence of alcohol.

[DockMan]

I doubt that it will be easy to find a party or MP who will admit in public that he/she is in favour of 'not' trying to cut the incidence of driving under the influence of alcohol.

I hope that you could find a party or MP who would love to employ every means available to cut the incidence of driving under the influence of alcohol while preserving the integrity of the charter of rights. We should never allow our government, IMO, to impose that kind of proposed random search and seizure, through its agents, on it's own people.

[toolatecrew]

We just need to extend the solution further.

Child pornography is a horrible crime. Its not illegal to have the internet but it is illegal to use it to access child porn. I have children I would not want this to ever hurt them in any way. SO why not allow the police to randomly come into your hiuse and check your computer to see what you have on there and what sites you are browsing. Surley 15 Minutes of your life isn't too great an inconvienience to prevent child porn.

Heck while they are there they could look to see if you have any illegal guns, maybe look to see if your kids or wife look like they are abused.

Its 15 minutes and they don't even take a sample of bodily fluid or breath!

The random search methodology can be extended to any number of things becuase it might "save one more life"

[Jaeger]

^^^Another pathetic attempt at a straw man.  Here's mine:

Okay - since you're so in love with freedom, let's never allow police to invade the sanctity of a person's home - even with a warrant - to search for child pornography - I mean, these child pornographers have RIGHTS - and we don't want to become a Nazi fascist state - so lets keep police OUT of people's homes!  And heck, if they're hiding the body of some kidnapped and murdered child in there - too bad - freedom trumps everything!  Fight the power! 

Jaeger

[tpl]

Nobody has any problem with a search for child porn  conducted after the police have been in front of a judge and shown reasonable cause to get a search warrant. The police seem to have the gathering of evidence on that one off to a fine art nowadays.
Same as nobody has any objection to a stop and test for drunken driving when a police office has reasonable cause. In the latter case the police can act without a search warrant as it is obviously impractical to get one. I have suggested already that experienced police officers have a well tuned instinct for drunk drivers.

Its the stop and search just 'cos a policeman doesn't like your face or because his hemorrhoids hurt or he is bored with his job is the problem.

[toolatecrew]

^^^Another pathetic attempt at a straw man.  Here's mine:

Okay - since you're so in love with freedom, let's never allow police to invade the sanctity of a person's home - even with a warrant - to search for child pornography - I mean, these child pornographers have RIGHTS - and we don't want to become a Nazi fascist state - so lets keep police OUT of people's homes!  And heck, if they're hiding the body of some kidnapped and murdered child in there - too bad - freedom trumps everything!  Fight the power! 

Jaeger

Pot meet kettle.

Talk about strawman arguments.

No one is objecting to searches.Its searches without cause. 

Right now the law is that they need CAUSE to search your home. Yes it can limit catching SOME badguys. But I and it seems YOU are willing to let some bad guys off becuase you don't want the police wandering into your house with no good reason.

Right now the law says "you can't brath test me" WITHOUT A REASON. Yes you may misee the occasional badguy becuase of it but I'm willing to pay that price to prevent harrasment.

Stop throwing up stupid crap like people are trying to prevent the police from doing searches or catching badguys. Its juvinile.

[safristi]

cripes with spelling like that maybe the SPELL _CHECK plice cold breastalyze yuo.......No i hasmat writen bda wrds oown the lowkal chirch................

[Jaeger]

^^^Another pathetic attempt at a straw man.  Here's mine:

Okay - since you're so in love with freedom, let's never allow police to invade the sanctity of a person's home - even with a warrant - to search for child pornography - I mean, these child pornographers have RIGHTS - and we don't want to become a Nazi fascist state - so lets keep police OUT of people's homes!  And heck, if they're hiding the body of some kidnapped and murdered child in there - too bad - freedom trumps everything!  Fight the power! 

Jaeger

Pot meet kettle.

Talk about strawman arguments.
No one is objecting to searches.Its searches without cause. 

Right now the law is that they need CAUSE to search your home. Yes it can limit catching SOME badguys. But I and it seems YOU are willing to let some bad guys off becuase you don't want the police wandering into your house with no good reason.

Right now the law says "you can't brath test me" WITHOUT A REASON. Yes you may misee the occasional badguy becuase of it but I'm willing to pay that price to prevent harrasment.

Stop throwing up stupid crap like people are trying to prevent the police from doing searches or catching badguys. Its juvinile.

Yes genius - that was entirely my point.  That argument - like the one you advanced - was "stupid crap".  The difference is, I recognized it as such and announced it as such.

Jaeger

[Jaeger]

Right now the law says "you can't brath test me" WITHOUT A REASON.

Not really.  The law says that the evidence obtained as a result of the breath test won't be admitted in court if the officer didn't have reasonable grounds for the demand.  But there is no-one at the roadside making sure the officer has reasonable grounds (or a reasonable suspicion) - he says blow, you blow.  Or he arrests you for a refusal.  Either way, the existence of a reasonable suspicion is something that only gets litigated later in court.

And guess what - that only happens if you FAIL the screening device test.

Under the new system, as under the current system, if you pass - you go on your way - and the existence (or absence) of reasonable grounds simply never sees the light of day.

Under the new system, as under the current system, the "innocent" are minimally inconvenienced (and yes, their rights are violated - minimally) for the greater good of getting drunks off the road.  Stamp your feet and shake your curls all you want - that's the reality.  And it won't result in the Gestapo kicking in your door in the middle of the night to haul you to a concentration camp, so why don't you just give that noise a rest.

Jaeger

[toolatecrew]

Right now the law says "you can't brath test me" WITHOUT A REASON.

Not really.  The law says that the evidence obtained as a result of the breath test won't be admitted in court if the officer didn't have reasonable grounds for the demand.  But there is no-one at the roadside making sure the officer has reasonable grounds (or a reasonable suspicion) - he says blow, you blow.  Or he arrests you for a refusal.  Either way, the existence of a reasonable suspicion is something that only gets litigated later in court.

And guess what - that only happens if you FAIL the screening device test.

Under the new system, as under the current system, if you pass - you go on your way - and the existence (or absence) of reasonable grounds simply never sees the light of day.

Under the new system, as under the current system, the "innocent" are minimally inconvenienced (and yes, their rights are violated - minimally) for the greater good of getting drunks off the road.  Stamp your feet and shake your curls all you want - that's the reality.  And it won't result in the Gestapo kicking in your door in the middle of the night to haul you to a concentration camp, so why don't you just give that noise a rest.

Jaeger

Nope still missing the point.

Today if officer Joe decides to harass you by pulling you over and making you blow 6 times in one day you file a harrasment complaint. Not only does any charges of refusal etc get thrown out but the officer gets punished suspended etc. There is a disincentive to use breath testing for other purposes other than what it intended.

Under the proposed system you have NO recourse under the law. He wants to pull you over every day 3 times a day he can. You can't refuse. You go to court and put up a defense of I'm being harrased doing this 3 times a day no dice. He has the right to do it randomly. Don't try to say it woudln't happen.

You keep thowing out the "inconvienience" argument. Its not about inconvienience. Its about checks and balances. Its about preventing abuse of power. You open that door to random searches without cause and its hard to get it closed again.

Let me repeat..its not about inconvienience. Its about protecting innocent people from police misusing their power. We need protection from this. The current law does not prevent it. It DETERS it becuase they know their will be a consequence if they violate your rights. The truly bad ones will get weeded out becuase they will abuse their power ,someone will defend themselves against it and they will be exposed and expelled. If you take away an inoccent person's right to defend themselves against the abuse the bad ones will simply continue to abuse it becuase they can. Its like whistleblower laws . It enables people to know they can come forawrd becuase if they are truly right they will be protected. Random searches breech this.How do you propose an innocent person to defend themselves against being "randomly stopped" over and over?

[Jaeger]

Nonsense.  Innocent people - i.e. the ones who aren't drunk behind the wheel - face no greater jeopardy under the new system than they do under the current system. 

They can be randomly stopped under the current system.   They can be forced to blow if the officer has a reasonable suspicion of alcohol under the current system.  Under the proposed system, such suspicion is not needed. But in either case, the officer in the only one who determines - at the scene - if he has a reasonable suspicion - so there are no "checks and balances" that prevent the innocent - or the guilty - from being subject to a screening test if the officer decides to impose one under either system.  That is the reality you refuse to confront.

But in either case, if they pass the screening test, they are sent on their way.  Innocent people have nothing to worry about.  Drunk drivers sure do - and that's rather the point.

I get that you seem to believe that the police are a great evil body looking for any thin excuse to harrass innocent people - stopping them repeatedly for some nefarious reason, or else for the pure joy of it.  I sure don't share your view.  Are there bad eggs?  Sure - always have been, always will be.  But you don't tie the hands of the many good officers for fear of what some bad ones might do.  Bottom line - I think your rather.... interesting.... view of law enforcement is clouding your view of the issue.

You are welcome to the last word - I don't think my responding to your posts further on this issue can serve any purpose.

Jaeger

[DockMan]

I don't think my responding to your posts further on this issue can serve any purpose.

Jaeger

I thought we reached that impasse 20 posts ago. 

[Jaeger]

I don't think my responding to your posts further on this issue can serve any purpose.

Jaeger

I thought we reached that impasse 20 posts ago. 

You're right.  We did.  I went against my better judgment.  Not the first time that's happened.

Jaeger

[safristi]

 ..............