Police Forum Police Head Mod: Skidmark
Questions & info about the Motor Vehicle Act. Mature discussion only. |
 | | 
12-02-2010, 01:20 PM
|
#26 | | I subscribe to Revscene
Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,978
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
|
I was going to bring that exact same point up, but I know there are people on here who disagree with me for the sake of stirring the pot so I didn't.
How about this: The restriction printed on the back of a DL requires corrective eyewear, yet the licencee had laser vision correction and no longer needs glasses. Should the police officer issue a ticket for driving contrary to restrictions?
| 
|  | |
12-02-2010, 01:22 PM
|
#27 | | I subscribe to Revscene
Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,978
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by sho_bc  First off, these people wouldn't be criminals. Transgressors of the Motor Vehicle Act, yes, but not criminals. | Define it any way you want, but anyone who breaks the law and provokes an armed response from the police is a criminal.
| |
| | |
12-02-2010, 02:58 PM
|
#28 | | I am grateful grapefruit
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,094
Thanked 831 Times in 392 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry How about this: The restriction printed on the back of a DL requires corrective eyewear, yet the licencee had laser vision correction and no longer needs glasses. Should the police officer issue a ticket for driving contrary to restrictions? | Then why don't you stop by the Drivers licencing to get your Licence Restriction changed? I know people who got laser surgery who still don't have good enough vision to pass a vision test at the Drivers Licencing. How is a police officer supposed to test for that on the road? Are they supposed to keep an eye chart handy to test people on the road? Are they supposed to get trained on how to administer an eye test?
The issue behind this is, you were too lazy in the first place. Maybe you might not deserve the punishment that comes with the violation, but - you are wasting everyone's time/resources. The police officer that pulled you over. The judge's time at the court. The administration that comes with the appeal process. Should we have a violation ticket that has a lower fine - but one that is issued to people who are lazy?
| |
| | |
12-02-2010, 07:32 PM
|
#29 | | Proud to be called a RS Regular!
Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: BC
Posts: 114
Thanked 28 Times in 14 Posts
|
Gotta love the childish responses from people like jlenko. Tell you what - go spend some time in a country where the law is black and white, there is no grey in the court system and officers act as judge and jury. Then try tell me having a justice system, and the notion that innocent until proven guilty is "unfair" Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry Define it any way you want, but anyone who breaks the law and provokes an armed response from the police is a criminal. | Have to strongly disagree here. There is an enormous difference between being criminal, and being deviant.
It is a very basic legal principal, that every crime violates law, but not every violation of the law is a crime. You cannot classify those involved in civil suits, or in contravention of legal regulations as criminals, otherwise practically every human being would be a criminal. It's more suited to the term of "infraction", which is a widely accepted term.
They are "offenders" or "deviants" but not most DEFINITELY not criminals.
Granted - loosely defined, crime and criminals, involve action outside of normal social constraints as defined by law, but that is a little to broad to be applied generally. In Canada, it is pretty simple, because Crimes are spelled out under the Criminal Code or other criminal law acts.
Last edited by Bainne; 12-02-2010 at 07:43 PM.
| |
| | |
12-02-2010, 07:48 PM
|
#30 | | I subscribe to Revscene
Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,978
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
|
So what about all the people under the new drink-driving laws who *should* be convicted as criminals but are instead being given an administrative punishment because the police don't want to bother with the court system?
| |
| | |
12-02-2010, 10:45 PM
|
#31 | | I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
Join Date: May 2001 Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 3,564
Thanked 330 Times in 163 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Bainne Gotta love the childish responses from people like jlenko. Tell you what - go spend some time in a country where the law is black and white, there is no grey in the court system and officers act as judge and jury. Then try tell me having a justice system, and the notion that innocent until proven guilty is "unfair" | My family came from those very countries.. I know what it's like. I value the fact that Canada gives people opportunities, but people like the OP who are clearly breaking the rules and getting away with it are what is ruining this great country.
Try applying the same scenario to something other than a driver's licence. Maybe you children will understand when your family is missing a family member, and the person responsibly skirts court time by simply lying and getting away with murder. You might think differently. Sure, extreme situations... but you never know.
BTW, I have to use childish language so you fools will understand me.
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
| |
| | |
12-02-2010, 11:05 PM
|
#32 | | I am grateful grapefruit
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,094
Thanked 831 Times in 392 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry So what about all the people under the new drink-driving laws who *should* be convicted as criminals but are instead being given an administrative punishment because the police don't want to bother with the court system? | The big kerfuffle with the new drinking/driving laws, is that the ones getting affected are the ones blowing in the "warn" range - which falls under an impaired driving violation, but is not criminal. They're the ones who are facing harsher punishments (I think the criminal BAC 0.08 has harsher punishments as well, someone can correct me, but I don't think anyone really argues against more lenient punishments for them....).
If you want to petition to lower the Criminal BAC to 0.05, go ahead, start your petition.
| |
| | |
12-02-2010, 11:12 PM
|
#33 | | I subscribe to Revscene
Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,978
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by gars The big kerfuffle with the new drinking/driving laws, is that the ones getting affected are the ones blowing in the "warn" range - which falls under an impaired driving violation, but is not criminal. They're the ones who are facing harsher punishments (I think the criminal BAC 0.08 has harsher punishments as well, someone can correct me, but I don't think anyone really argues against more lenient punishments for them....).
If you want to petition to lower the Criminal BAC to 0.05, go ahead, start your petition. | I'm talking about the massive reduction in criminal charges of drunk driving, the people who should be made criminals are getting off with a simple ADP.
| |
| | |
12-02-2010, 11:16 PM
|
#34 | | Wanna have a threesome?
Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Squamish
Posts: 4,889
Thanked 5,054 Times in 1,657 Posts
|
I would support the limit being lowered to criminal at BAC 0.05 under one condition, a breathalyzer we made available at any place of business that serves alcohol so people can ensure they are within the legal range. I don't believe people should drive after more than one drink, but allowing one drink isn't unreasonable and that alone can be push the 0.05 limit in certain people.
| |
| | |
12-03-2010, 03:43 PM
|
#35 | | I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
Join Date: May 2001 Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 3,564
Thanked 330 Times in 163 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry I'm talking about the massive reduction in criminal charges of drunk driving, the people who should be made criminals are getting off with a simple ADP. | I noticed that bit on the news last night... I'm surprised more people aren't aware of this change. Seems like a pretty big deal to me!
Think of all the poor lawyers who will be out of work now!
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
| |
| | |
12-03-2010, 10:40 PM
|
#36 | | I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,721
Thanked 12,136 Times in 3,361 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry ... I know there are people on here who disagree with me for the sake of stirring the pot.... | Irony, thy name is sebberry.
__________________ Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira Does anyone know how many to a signature? | ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?" | | |
| | |
12-03-2010, 10:54 PM
|
#37 | | I subscribe to Revscene
Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,978
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy Irony, thy name is sebberry. |  | |
| | |
12-04-2010, 12:46 AM
|
#38 | | ninja edits your posts without your knowledge
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,956
Thanked 6,308 Times in 1,776 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry | The pot calling the kettle black.
| |
| | |
12-04-2010, 09:03 AM
|
#39 | | I subscribe to Revscene
Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,978
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by CRS The pot calling the kettle black. | Hardly.
| |
| | |
12-04-2010, 01:20 PM
|
#40 | | I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,721
Thanked 12,136 Times in 3,361 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry Hardly. | Obliviousness and self-delusion, thy names are also sebberry.
__________________ Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira Does anyone know how many to a signature? | ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?" | | |
| | |
12-04-2010, 03:08 PM
|
#41 | | ninja edits your posts without your knowledge
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,956
Thanked 6,308 Times in 1,776 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy Obliviousness and self-delusion, thy names are also sebberry. |  | |
| | | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:28 AM.
|
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
