Originally Posted by Elements604 (Post 7358319)

The crime simply does not fit the punishment. The law does not state that he should loose his career ontop all the expensive fines. Im sure everyone here has done something against the law at one point or another, imagine loosing your career over it. All I see here is one sided posts of he deserves it with out knowing all the details.

There is obviously a flaw in the whole imobolizer system if the city isnt making it possible to install it on the work vehichles. There should be another method for people who work.

Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 7358468)

Well, this is from the Yukon government's website (http://www.community.gov.yk.ca/dcb/aiip_facts.html#7), but I would expect BC to similar:



So let's see... 40 trucks, $200 each... that's $8,000 to install them, and $5,000 *per month* to monitor and maintain. He'd be further ahead just to quit.

And legally, yes, I think they would insist it be on every vehicle that he MIGHT need to drive in his employment.

Originally Posted by observer (Post 7358952)

The problem, is the bad law. Guilty until proven innocent. We give the police too much power on selective enforcement.

Originally Posted by adambomb (Post 7357462)

I'm the type who always thinks outside the box. :eek5:

Does anybody know WHY (maybe stewie) he would go to the media about his situation? He has zero support from the public, his union agrees that he was wrong and the city is justified in not wanting to install interlock devices. What sort of sympathy was the guy expecting for being caught drinking and driving? What sort of help can the media provide?


The story is probably true but it seems kind of fishy. Who would publicly expose their situation knowing they would be slandered? He could get transfered within the city and people would never know about. Tons of people have been caught driving and driving over the years and have lost their jobs. Why does this story get coverage?

Originally Posted by observer (Post 7358952)

The problem, is the bad law. Guilty until proven innocent.

Not exactly, Police have a duty to investigate impaired drivers...even the supreme court said our rights could be over ruled because of the danger they cause. This is not about a .05 or .08 reading causing him to loose an impounded vehicle...this is about him refusing to provide a sample. . Long before Police had roadside screening devices they investigated impaired drivers. They need grounds to do so. When you refused to go back and provide a breathalizer sample, you were charged with refusal to provide a sample. I was doing this back in the early 1980s. Nothing new.


We give the police too much power on selective enforcement.



This is nothing to do with selective enforcement unless you call removing impaired drivers from the roads selective enforcement? ...or looking into cars to see if they are wearing their seatbelts, or using Radar or Laser to monitor their speeds.[


Of course the man would go to the press, why not, it's all about political lobbying. Those with the means brainwash and campaign for their own interests.

Originally Posted by Jayhall (Post 7358448)

what if he paid to have all the trucks outfitted with the blow me device?? I kind of doubt that they would need to put the device on EVERY truck. In most of my experience most workers who drive usually drive the same truck from day to day.

Originally Posted by OTG-ZR2 (Post 7362188)

I have no sympathy for this individual.
If your job is based on your license, why bother to risk it?


If I lose my license, I lose my job....Not worth the one night of drinking.

Originally Posted by OTG-ZR2 (Post 7362188)

If I lose my license, I lose my job....Not worth the one night of drinking.

Originally Posted by OTG-ZR2 (Post 7362188)

I have no sympathy for this individual.
If your job is based on your license, why bother to risk it?


If I lose my license, I lose my job....Not worth the one night of drinking.

Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 7362269)

You can still answer the phone with your nubs/hook... :troll:

Originally Posted by stewie (Post 7360048)

city works differently, theres about 30 garbage trucks, hes not assigned to one specific truck, every day hes on a different one.

im pretty sure the only reason ken went to the papers with this is because a few years ago a foreman ended up needing one of the blow devices in a vehicle and the city rigged his truck with one.