RCMP at it again...

[Traditional_Ale]

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=5976530

This one is a real doozy.

[MelBridgeman]

Insensitive for sure, but by the book?

[CaptainCrunch]

Just stupid

[Ducay]

Its pretty bad looking, but what can they really do? Playing DA, what if she was drunk, and they happen to let her go and she gets into a collision and kills someone?
Then everyone just has to pretend they have a breathing problem next time they don't want to get charged with refusing to provide a sample.

[karl262]

It sucks that some officers are made into total robots and unable to use their own judgement in cases like this. They want to try to do everything "by the book" without any human factors considered. Making her stand outside like that for an extended period of time is inexcusable.

[MelBridgeman]

Just based on the article it looks pretty bad.

But the RCMP don't have access to all the information (like in the article) they need to treat her any differently.

Give her the money back and apologize, nothing more nothing less

things like this are just going to happen - the RCMP are just doing their job.

[geos]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Its pretty bad looking, but what can they really do? Playing DA, what if she was drunk, and they happen to let her go and she gets into a collision and kills someone?

Now everyone just has to pretend they have a breathing problem next time they don't want to get charged with refusing to provide a sample.

The issue is with the law that gives her no ability to appeal her punishment in a timely fashion. That's not the country that I want to live in. A fair punishment would be for her to get the 24 hour suspension and check in with a judge who would be able to review the situation (and probably toss the charge).

A 24 hours ban would be fine, whatever. But she's out of driving for months, out thousands of dollars and was made to suffer for nothing.

That's justice I tell ya. Sounds more like Mexico or Columbia.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't disagree that the officers have to follow protocal, but at the very least, they should have done it from the warmth of her own house.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Its pretty bad looking, but what can they really do? Playing DA, what if she was drunk, and they happen to let her go and she gets into a collision and kills someone?

Now everyone just has to pretend they have a breathing problem next time they don't want to get charged with refusing to provide a sample.

Um. Well it was ~12:30 AM and she had just gotten HOME. So unless she intended on leaving again, a 24 hour suspension probably would have been fine.

The problem is that the law assumes that everyone is able to blow sufficiently into a breathalyzer, which is obviously not a guarantee for those with respiratory problems. Why can't one submit to a blood test instead of a breath test if necessary? A blood test is surely more accurate in checking blood alcohol levels.

This is what bothers me about drunk driving laws. Guilty until proven innocent. Guilty of something else if guilt can't be proven or disproven using a single method.

[MarchHare]

Like the past few posters, I don't necessarily think the RCMP did anything wrong here, BUT this case absolutely highlights my point from the other drunk driving thread about why police officers should never be given the power of judge and jury. This woman committed no crime but she nonetheless received punishment without legal recourse. If she was permitted to defend her case in court, she could have submitted her blood test as evidence, been found not guilty, and suffered no penalty. Instead, the drunk driving laws in BC (which now exist Alberta too) deny her the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, the very cornerstone of our criminal justice system.

[Boblobla]

I have a bigger problem with the fact she was convicted, rather then the actual charges.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Um. Well it was ~12:30 AM and she had just gotten HOME. So unless she intended on leaving again, a 24 hour suspension probably would have been fine.

The problem is that the law assumes that everyone is able to blow sufficiently into a breathalyzer, which is obviously not a guarantee for those with respiratory problems. Why can't one submit to a blood test instead of a breath test if necessary? A blood test is surely more accurate in checking blood alcohol levels.

This is what bothers me about drunk driving laws. Guilty until proven innocent. Guilty of something else if guilt can't be proven or disproven using a single method.

She was never guilty of drinking and driving, it's a against the law to not provide a breathalyzer sample - that doesn't mean you are guilty of drinking and driving and i am sure the geniuses out there haven't considered people who may have respiratory issues...but than again you don't usually see people with respiratory issues out at 12:30 at night driving "erratically"

[Boblobla]

This is the worst part for me:

The oral hearing was held June 1 and her appeal was denied June 9.

A few days later, MacDonald suffered a mild, stress-related heart attack and was in hospital for five days.

Her attempt to seek redress in B.C. Supreme Court was put on hold late last year because the drunk-driving provisions were already under review.

[CrusaderPi]

ZERO TOLERANCE! Throw the drunk in jail.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

She was never guilty of drinking and driving, it's a against the law to not provide a breathalyzer sample - that doesn't mean you are guilty of drinking and driving and i am sure the geniuses out there haven't considered people who may have respiratory issues...but than again you don't usually see people with respiratory issues out at 12:30 at night driving "erratically"

Exactly my point. You could be not guilty, but failing to submit to a breath test (or in this instance, failing to be physically capable of providing one) makes you guilty of something else. It's BS.

As for not seeing people with respiratory issues driving late at night, what makes you say that? How easy is it to tell if the person in the car next to you has a breathing problem? Not every breathing problem requires a mask and an oxygen tank.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Exactly my point. You could be not guilty, but failing to submit to a breath test (or in this instance, failing to be physically capable of providing one) makes you guilty of something else. It's BS.

As for not seeing people with respiratory issues driving late at night, what makes you say that? How easy is it to tell if the person in the car next to you has a breathing problem? Not every breathing problem requires a mask and an oxygen tank.

I just i bet you don't see if ever in that part of the world ederly out that late of night with medical issues - so i can understand somewhat if that was the last thing on the RCMP's mind.

Either way the cops did their job, it's the law the somewhat discriminates against people who may not be able to complete the test.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I just i bet you don't see if ever in that part of the world ederly out that late of night with medical issues - so i can understand somewhat if that was the last thing on the RCMP's mind.

That shouldn't even matter.

[Locke]

When the stone-cold-sober pensioner with poor lung capacity was unable to blow hard enough to activate the roadside screening device, Margaret MacDonald was cited for failing to blow, her licence was suspended, she was fined $500 and her car was towed.

3 cheers for due process!!

How about Cops who are complete robots incapable of acknowledging the painfully obvious? Give them all the power in the world. Seems completely reasonable to me that they should be Judge, Jury and Executioner right there on the side of the road.

“I could not blow at all,” she said. “I was traumatized, cold and close to tears. When I could not blow, the senior RCMP banged his fist on the squad car and shouted at me: ‘Blow, blow … Your tongue is in the tube. You are doing this on purpose. You are slurring your words. You are drunk. I can smell alcohol on you.’ I said, ‘I don’t drink.’ He barked: ‘They all say that!’”

Yeah, oh yeah, incredibly reasonable people. This is a senior RCMP officer? Can we give him more power? He seems like hes adamant about cleaning up the streets from all of those pesky 82 year old pensioners.

“I know if you don’t have proof, no one will believe you,” MacDonald explained. “That’s what possessed me to go to the hospital. The Mounties weren’t going to get away with saying I was drunk or had been drinking.”

Funny, typically when a crime is involved, doesnt the onus of proof fall upon the prosecution? The Police had ZERO proof that she was intoxicated. Did they even bother with a field sobriety test or was it just easier to charge her, suspend her and tow her car?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

That shouldn't even matter.

I agree....but sometimes human nature can kick in OR experience can take precedent over training.

[rubecube]

Is anyone really surprised? The meathead ratio in the RCMP is pretty high.