119 replies to this topic

[Schnook]

The poster named 'http' is a source of amusement to me. In the context of resentment toward local police, one senses that one is not being provided with the whole story.

[maniac78]

Well here you have it :

http://www.globaltvb...7083/story.html

It was bound to happen really. This is exactly why we have the rule of law. Suspending it for expedience will only result in more of this.If this woman didn't have the presence of mind to go get a blood test she would have had no chance of appealing this at all. Guilty until proven innocent. That's not justice.

[sebberry]

Well here you have it

All in the name of road safety!

[kenjh]

in the grand way of life ,,i am glad to provide amusement,,my view's,,and my world to share ,sometimes just to stoke the fire's..

[LJ]

I hope she sues, and wins big.

[maniac78]

I hope she sues, and wins big.

On what grounds? I think the law was followed here. That's the problem.

[sebberry]

She was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample when she was medically incapable of providing one.

Big difference between intending to refuse and not being able to blow hard enough.

The OSMV should have immediately reinstated her licence, returned her car, compensated her for all towing and impound fees, refunded any fines and deleted any and all records of the incident and the RCMP (particularly the two officers who dealt with her) should be on camera giving her a public apology.

[rjag]

She was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample when she was medically incapable of providing one.

Big difference between intending to refuse and not being able to blow hard enough.

The OSMV should have immediately reinstated her licence, returned her car, compensated her for all towing and impound fees, refunded any fines and deleted any and all records of the incident and the RCMP (particularly the two officers who dealt with her) should be on camera giving her a public apology.

Yup totally agree, there is such a thing as officers discretion, they are not mandated to act as a$$holes and could have easily after the first few attempts told her that they were concerned about her well being and asked her to submit to a blood test as they had grounds....being that they didn't, just further reinforces the simple fact that her rights were violated.

This is like the 95 year old grandma who was incontinent and was forced to a strip search at the airport in the States because she was wearing a diaper....some people just love their job a bit too much!!!

http://www.streetart...ssary-screening

[kenjh]

just when I was beginning to have respect for the police ..

[jklymak]

What I don't understand, is it sounds to me like she was at home by the time the police were called. They never even pulled her over.

[Sparky]

^ The way I understood it, was that an off duty policewoman saw her make a vehicle violation a short distance from her house. The off duty officer called it in after the woman arrived at her home. All this happened in front of her neighbours.

[maniac78]

.being that they didn't, just further reinforces the simple fact that her rights were violated.

I believe the BC legislature were the ones who stripped everyone in the province of our rights with their unconstitutional law. The police just enforced it. The thing is I bet you anything this has happened to some younger person in this province too but no one cares because it's not as compelling as an 85 year old woman and they might not have been smart enough to go get a blood test.

[maniac78]

This is like the 95 year old grandma who was incontinent and was forced to a strip search at the airport in the States because she was wearing a diaper....some people just love their job a bit too much!!!

http://www.streetart...ssary-screening

How do you think they clear anomalies they see in the strip search machines? There is a reason why they have private rooms at security checkpoints. I can't believe anyone is shocked by stuff like this I really can't.

[rjag]

To quote Ben Franklin

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[jklymak]

^ The way I understood it, was that an off duty policewoman saw her make a vehicle violation a short distance from her house. The off duty officer called it in after the woman arrived at her home. All this happened in front of her neighbours.

Yeah, but I mean, why didn't she just go inside? She was on her own property....

[Sparky]

Yeah, but I mean, why didn't she just go inside? She was on her own property....

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think it matters where you are......in your house....on your lawn...or standing on the sidewalk.

If the police tell you to do something, I think one is obliged to follow the instruction.

[sebberry]

I think you're right - otherwise anyone who committed a crime would just race home really quickly and make funny faces at the policeman through the window.

[rjag]

Remember the case of the Vancouver Cop that was suspected of DUI, he made it home and went inside and cracked a bottle and when the knocked on his door he answered it with a drink in hand and they couldnt prove he drove drunk because he was now in the privacy of his own home for something like 30 minutes and he stated he consumed a few drinks immediately upon arriving home.

He got off with it.....

[sebberry]

I guess when you enforce these laws every day you know every trick in the book.

[LJ]

On what grounds? I think the law was followed here. That's the problem.

Perhaps the law was followed, but, I don't think you have the right to keep someone detained, in inappropriate clothing for the weather for two hours.

Rather than calling the supervisor they should have taken her to the station and tried there or demanded a blood test.

I would think she could probably win a suit based on harassment, improper treatment, mental distress or some such.