Yeah, and we all know Canada is headed down the same road. :rolleyes:

You say the law is being abused and I asked you to provide an example. You haven't been able to.

So, spend $50 less on your booze... like only $350 for drinks instead of $400.

Er... DUI over 0.08 *is* a criminal offence under the Criminal Code of Canada... and the vehicle IS the property being used in the commission of that crime... and together with the crime, DO create actual harm to society... arguably FAR MORE harm than organized crime.

I have to agree with this.

Also they're not confiscating the cars of people who blow over only once, but rather those who are doing so in rapid succession which begs the question if then they're also ignoring their driving suspensions to do so.

I have to respectfully dissagree with that.

I think that perspective comes from the notion that while largely, the gangsters are killing each other (with the exception of the tragedy in Burnaby a couple of years ago) while drunk drivers kill completely innocent by-standers.

I find it fairly easy to avoid being around people involved in gangs or that are likely to be the target of a targeted hit. I can easily "opt out" of being involved or at risk of that sort of crime, most of us can. On the other hand the only way to avoid drunk drivers is to never leave your house.

On average 133 people are killed and 3400 injured as a result of drinking and driving every year here in BC, many of them children.

In 2008 we had 140 murders in BC (which at the time was the record ever, down to 118 in 2009, I couldn't find 2010's numbers), about 43 of which were believed to be associated with orginized crime and largely the victims (in those cases), were not so innocent themselves.

43 deaths vs 133 deaths.

The drunk drivers are up on the gangs for harm.

I don't know about you but I actually lost 2 friends in high school, a year a part in drunk driving accidents. I would have given anything for them to have had their cars taken away if it would mean they'd still be here today.

I've lost a couple people I knew due to drunk driving as well.

What is it that "gangster" deal in? How do they make their money? I know there's more than one way but I think i'm being pretty obvious in the answer i'm looking for.

Why doesnt the city make the skytrains run until like 3-4am or enforce cheaper cab fares? I Guarantee alot of drunk drivers will be using that alternative if that option was out there. Im 100% sure it will at the very least save 1 life but why hasnt the city done this?

Oh thats right.............cause the city would have to pay for it, why would they wanna do that when they can just punish them with hefty fines and vehicle seizures and make money off that. Whats a few human lives in the process right? Well according to TheNewGirl is a 133 lives a year

The famous street racing case involving the Ferrari and M6. The case faced by another poster in this forum where he was charged simply of excessive speeding on an empty hey in the middle of the night. No actual harm done to anyone in either of those examples.

Another thing is the arbitrariness of the judgements. If "victims" need to be compensated, it should be based on consistent standards. If the incidents were the same, why should a person who happens to drive a more expensive car suffer greater financial loss than a person with a cheaper car?
Posted via RS Mobile

[QUOTE=dangonay;7422799]Yeah, and we all know Canada is headed down the same road. :rolleyes:

When the govt confiscates private property from citizens based on the notion of potential harm to society we are going down the same slippery slope. Nazi propaganda promoted World Jewry as harming German society too.
Posted via RS Mobile

That's a charge not a conviction. Penalties are only imposed after conviction. Yet your car can be confiscated before you are even convicted.
Posted via RS Mobile

Did you not read my previous post? Here, I've quoted it again for you. You're using examples where there's far more to the story, and then using that partial information to base judgement?

I'll make it really clear: the police know you've committed child molestation and armed robbery and have evidence for both. Either one puts you away for 10 years. You get offered a choice: go to trial on both or plead to the armed robbery and avoid being labelled a molester. Of course, you take the plea. The police then bring up the armed robbery case was made due to cameras installed at intersections and use the case as an example to show they work and are helping to cut down on crime.

There's a reason the Ferrari and M6 owners settled.

As I memtioned, we'll soon see these types of cases in court as all the lawyers currently defending drunk drivers (and there are a LOT of on-going cases) will now have to deal with forfeiture as well. So if the law is unfair, I expect a drunk driver to get their car back and the law "re-written".

You should be thanking the drunk drivers, as they'll likely do more to get this law examined/changed than any "experts" debating on a forum. :)

Hmmm, like illegal firearms?

Yeah, we better put an end to the seizure of illegal firearms too, even if they have't been used to cut up a crowded McDonalds yet.

Marco never provides examples, he just talks out his ass.

yeah. i hear alot of people are just refusing the breathalyzer, lawyering up and taking it to court. i personally know a few people that have done that and they seem very confident that they will win their case.

That's exactly why these new laws come into affect, cause the current laws have no teeth and cannot be easily fixed due to how our legal system works. The new laws have to be vague cause then they cover a wide range, unlike specific laws which can be fought on technicalities.

If douchebags didn't fight cases when they were obviously guilty based on a technicality, we wouldn't need more laws with wider reach. Just check the Police forum for how many people ask how to beat a ticket with a spelling mistake - its douchebags like this that are making our legal system worse.

I think its also a problem where you can get your car taken away for 3 months. License suspended for 3 months. Massive fines and fees etc etc, or fight it and beat it in court and it will cost you far less money and time. These guys who refuse the breathalizer are fighting it on the grounds that there is no evidence of them being over the limit and there was no trial infront of a judge and/or their peers before they were convicted.
Posted via RS Mobile

If you refuse a breathalizer you're willingly accepting the full consequences of being drunk and driving. You might as well plead guilty to a DUI. The police officer tells you this when you say you don't want to blow. They tell you several times.

There's 0 benefit to refusing a breathalizer. You're better off blowing and refuting the accuracy of the test.

You should tell your friends NOT TO DRINK AND DRIVE so they don't have this problem.

---------------------


I agree that the skytrain SHOULD run later.

But 'I can't get home cheaply' is NOT a valid excuse for drinking and driving when a plethora of bars and clubs have safe ride programs, when you could have a DD, you could leave early to take the sky train or you could split the 50 bucks for the cab ride home between three or four friends.

If you can afford to be out partying in Vancouver, and you know you're going to be drinking you should plan AHEAD how you're going to get home, not leave it up to your drunk ass to figure it out. This is how mature adults function.

Anything else is the lame ass excuse of an over grown child who doesn't deserve a drivers license.

^the thing is not everyone is a mature adult. Not everyone plans to get smashed when they go out for maybe a drink or 2, sometimes it just happens they get alil carried away. EVERYONE knows the consequences of drunk driving yet people still do it. Its like speeding or anything else u do wrong, people know but decide to disregard the consequences. So if punishment wont help the problem why dont they try finding another way of dealing with it.

I find it funny how the city opened up a safe injection site for the few hundreds of people that are users yet they dont wanna open the skytrain later for the few hundred thousands of people that drink

Well the big problem with the skytrain is it's not just up to one municipality, but all the cities + translink but I'm sure if people really lobbied hard and made an orginized effort to do so they could get it done. But is anyone doing that? If not, is one of you going to step up and do it? People did that for the safe injection site, in fact there are people going to the supreme court of canada next week to defend it against the Tories attempts to shut it down (though, more people die of drug overdoses then drunk driving a year so it could be argued that it was more needed).

Again I TOTALLY agree the skytrain should run later. I'm not entirely convinced that the people who are incapable of planning a safe route home would take the sky train, they'd probably be all "Oh I couldn't leave my car there", because my experience is people who drink and drive generally seem to want to drink and drive and rarely take the responsible alternatives. It would be great for those of us who do plan ahead though (it really rather sucks to have to leave the bar at 1230 to get home safely).

And you're right not all people are mature adults. But like I said, that why I support removing the licenses of people who do drink and drive and the vehicles of those who chronically do so.

It's not your right to own a car or to drive. You have to prove to be mature enough to handle that responsibility or it should be taken away from you.

Ok then. What's worse. People chronically driving drunk or someone speeding excessivley on some sort of back road in the boonies. Both seem to get the same punishment.

Btw I don't plan on doing either. Lol
Posted via RS Mobile

Actually the $$$ is very similar in the end, if not more to hire a lawyer to fight an impaired driving charge in court. If you knew what you were talking about rather than just spouting stuff out you'd realize that most impaired lawyers tell their clients to provide breath samples and comply because it's much harder to fight a refusal. Refusing to provide a sample is a different charge and carries the exact same penalties, whether criminal or under an administrative driving prohibition.

Hey, even a cab ride to HOPE is cheaper than getting busted! Makes this an even lamer excuse!

Well, that eliminates about 80% of the population of RS.

Ah, there they are!

Maybe I should have stated this guy is a truck driver and drives for a living. Looking at loosing a lot more money than someone sitting behind a desk 8hours a day
Posted via RS Mobile