CalyxCrusher
Well-Known Member
Exactly what I had thought, snitch programFuck this now sounds like soviet Russia. This shit is getting overturned fo sho. Yellow vest at 24 Sussex drive lol.
Exactly what I had thought, snitch programFuck this now sounds like soviet Russia. This shit is getting overturned fo sho. Yellow vest at 24 Sussex drive lol.
Failing that the yellow vest protests should be good.I can't wait for the court challenges - should be entertaining
Pretty sure he'd say he thought he look intoxicated at the beer store while he observed him. Bingo...probable cause established......even if it's a lie.Other thing about this article is the police have the right now to demand a sample, but they still need cause to pull you over as far as I know, even with this new legislation. THEY HAD NO CAUSE as mentioned in the article.
Told everyone so.Exactly what I had thought, snitch program
If I had a cop neighbor I'd call on him/her every so often..
People will be handing over assholes left and right ...
It's a federal law not provincial, Dougy can't pull that kinda weight.Lol so anyone can just phone someone in?
oh dougy yer gonna pay for this fuck up mr...
But he is subject to the same laws. Why shouldn't he get subjected to the same harassment? Just call in his name several times a day. I'm going to report Rachel Notley....and I don't even live in the province. Do the same with federal MP's. We'll make this law the biggest pain in the ass for them. It'll only take one or two politicians getting harassed and charged to change the law.It's a federal law not provincial, Dougy can't pull that kinda weight.
No one is disagreeing with that fact. But you are gonna sit there and call me melodramatic that I make a reference to Canada turning into a police state by increasing police powers and limiting the citizen powers? You living under a rock or have your head buried in the sand sweetheart?the supreme court of Canada decided back in the 90's that random stops to check the drivers paperwork, sobriety or roadworthiness of your car does not violate the charter of rights and freedoms. Had the same scenario played out on the 31st of December without the breath test, it would have been within the law. The only change is they no longer require a reason to demand a breath test. As long as they are not pulling you over due to your race, sex etc. they really don't require a reason.
We have one of the highest percentages of road deaths involving alcohol compared to other first world nations, close to 35%. The right to drive a car on a public roadway does not appear anywhere in the charter of rights and freedoms, sorry.
Claiming this is the line that pulls us into a police state is a little melodramatic. If you're operating a multi-thousand pound vehicle drunk, you're a selfish jackass and deserve to be caught. Aren't you tired of hearing about people being killed for something so easily preventable?
Well they weren't doing any of that now were they? They can't pull you over just on a whim, or because they saw you returning bottles. Any charges that they would have filed would have been thrown out..they clearly did not stop him to check the road worthiness of his car or his paperwork, the cop clearly said he saw him returning bottles i.e. engaging in a lawful activity with no indication of non-sobriety. You must be a pig or something, stop making excuses for the police state.the supreme court of Canada decided back in the 90's that random stops to check the drivers paperwork, sobriety or roadworthiness of your car does not violate the charter of rights and freedoms. Had the same scenario played out on the 31st of December without the breath test, it would have been within the law. The only change is they no longer require a reason to demand a breath test. As long as they are not pulling you over due to your race, sex etc. they really don't require a reason.
We have one of the highest percentages of road deaths involving alcohol compared to other first world nations, close to 35%. The right to drive a car on a public roadway does not appear anywhere in the charter of rights and freedoms, sorry.
Claiming this is the line that pulls us into a police state is a little melodramatic. If you're operating a multi-thousand pound vehicle drunk, you're a selfish jackass and deserve to be caught. Aren't you tired of hearing about people being killed for something so easily preventable?
Well they weren't doing any of that now were they? They can't pull you over just on a whim, or because they saw you returning bottles. Any charges that they would have filed would have been thrown out..they clearly did not stop him to check the road worthiness of his car or his paperwork, the cop clearly said he saw him returning bottles i.e. engaging in a lawful activity with no indication of non-sobriety. You must be a pig or something, stop making excuses for the police state.
Ya missed my point.....It's a federal law not provincial, Dougy can't pull that kinda weight.
"As long as they are not pulling you over due to your race, sex etc. they really don't require a reason."the supreme court of Canada decided back in the 90's that random stops to check the drivers paperwork, sobriety or roadworthiness of your car does not violate the charter of rights and freedoms. Had the same scenario played out on the 31st of December without the breath test, it would have been within the law. The only change is they no longer require a reason to demand a breath test. As long as they are not pulling you over due to your race, sex etc. they really don't require a reason.
We have one of the highest percentages of road deaths involving alcohol compared to other first world nations, close to 35%. The right to drive a car on a public roadway does not appear anywhere in the charter of rights and freedoms, sorry.
Claiming this is the line that pulls us into a police state is a little melodramatic. If you're operating a multi-thousand pound vehicle drunk, you're a selfish jackass and deserve to be caught. Aren't you tired of hearing about people being killed for something so easily preventable?
and why it will get tossed ASAP lolYeah Here in ontario its happening alot since they passed the new law a couple weeks ago. Police don't need reason anymore. They can demand a breath test at anytime you are operating a motor vehicle. I've overheard people saying that, that includes ride on lawn mowers. So you can't have a beer while mowing your lawn. I'm sure if that is true but I heard some guys talking about while standing in line at Canadian Tire. Imaging getting a DUI in your backyard.
So what margin will this make the roads safer by exactly? It has very little to do with safety and a whole lot more to do with civil liberties. An officer can fabricate any reason they want to pull you over if they wish. Something as simple as "sorry it looked like you didnt signal back there." Even worse is that in the above article it was specifically about the amount of bottles which were returned. If you don't see a problem with that you're either willfully ignorant or sorely uninformed.the supreme court of Canada decided back in the 90's that random stops to check the drivers paperwork, sobriety or roadworthiness of your car does not violate the charter of rights and freedoms. Had the same scenario played out on the 31st of December without the breath test, it would have been within the law. The only change is they no longer require a reason to demand a breath test. As long as they are not pulling you over due to your race, sex etc. they really don't require a reason.
We have one of the highest percentages of road deaths involving alcohol compared to other first world nations, close to 35%. The right to drive a car on a public roadway does not appear anywhere in the charter of rights and freedoms, sorry.
Claiming this is the line that pulls us into a police state is a little melodramatic. If you're operating a multi-thousand pound vehicle drunk, you're a selfish jackass and deserve to be caught. Aren't you tired of hearing about people being killed for something so easily preventable?