Checkstop Warnings

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

and it can help people between .05-.08 who want to avoid the ridiculous new laws.

Interesting btw, I didn't realize it was socially acceptable to assist people in avoiding the police simply because they didn't like a new law?? You are no longer saying this is about avoiding a checkstop simply because of the hassle and the delay- you are saying this also about helping people avoid the judgement of the law because you, and others, don't like that particular law?

Well, I wonder if that logic is transferable to something even more heinous- would it be socially acceptable for some clown to start a twitter feed on how to avoid police capture as it pertains to new and stricter laws dealing with child pornography?? -simply because the holder of the twitter account doesn't like those new laws??

[pylon]

Originally Posted by bradster57

So why not just tweet a bunch of fake locations? Potential drunk drivers might be scared off and thus there could be less on the roads. Isn't that what we want?

Genius. You could figure out some sort of pattern that would actually filter them into the Checkstop.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Drinking and Driving is illegal. It is a criminal offence like assault. You get caught doing it, you get a record, fine/jail time. That is a fact.

Correct

Now if someone who is drunk decides to drive (criminal offence), and receives information that helps them circumvent being caught due to information you provided, how is that person not liable?

Posting twitter updates on checkstops is not illegal. Your argument ends here.

Now take the drunk driver. They take and alternate route due to information you provided, and hit someone in a cross walk, killing them instantly. Would you want the person who assisted in the crime by posting the check stop on twitter to face justice? at least morally?

To face justice? Absoluetly not. That's a damn slippery slope to want that kind of justice to be available in a country, especially in a progressive country like Canada.

answers in red

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by flameswin

answers in red

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the law still takes a dim view of aiding and abetting. It's my guess that if it could be proven that the drunk was in a state, capable of causing a serious accident, and it that there was enough evidence in the tweet to tie the tweeter and drunk together, that prosecution may be possible. However, it would probably be a landmark case, and not meant for all cases of tweeting the position of a checkstop in general.

I guess it comes down to the question of "How liable are you for what you put in the air?" And each case would have to be tried individually.

My guess is if the act of tweeting the position of a checkstop signiifcantly hampers the police's ability to execute the checkstop, that some sort of law will get passed. And when that happens, you can blame the tweeters that probably don't have enough sensitivity to realize the potential harm they may be creating.

Believe it or not I have railed against overregulation most of my life, in attempts to keep our society as free as possible. As far as the "slippery slope" is concerned, we are well down the slope and heading further. However, that doesn't negate the fact that we have to find a successful solution to the problem of drunk driving. To date, the checkstop is our best solution, and doing anythiing that circuvents it, I believe is irresponsible, and in the long run contributes to loss of freedom by encouraging more regulation. Besides, I am paying for the service through my taxes, and I want the "best bang for my buck". By tweeting the position of the checkstop, you are in a small way cheating me and everyone else who pays taxes.

[Boblobla]

I am pretty sure this is one of the signs of the apocalypse. I agree with Flip AND Moon in the same thread.

[Locke]

I think where the argument breaks down is the use of the information.

Twitter guy is providing information. Should that information be used by a drunk driver to avoid a checkstop then should the onus not still remain on the guy who decided to get wasted and drive?

Information is just information until someone decides to use it for illegal or immoral purposes, but at that point should not the person who made that decision be held responsible?

If people want to use Twitter guy's heads up for their own innocuous purposes then so be it. If some choose to use it for their own gain then they should assume the risk associated with that decision.

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Now take the drunk driver. They take and alternate route due to information you provided, and hit someone in a cross walk, killing them instantly. Would you want the person who assisted in the crime by posting the check stop on twitter to face justice? at least morally?

Why? At the end of the day the person in the crosswalk was killed by a drunk driver. Someone who made his own decisions. The fact that he took an alternate route seems irrelevant because you're trying to attribute blame elsewhere to Twitter guy rather than the drunk driver and thats wrong because Twitter guy isnt forcibly pouring beer down Johnny '10 pints' throat.

Not to mention, you can take the example as far as you want to. Let me show you:

What if Twitter guy makes no updates and the drunk driver plows into the Checkstop bus and kills 15 cops. Should he be held responsible then for not supplying the drunk with an alternate route?

[Cowboy89]

^ Some people really view any justice process related to alcohol and motor vehicles as morally binary. They take the view that anything that punishs or prevents drinking and driving even in the slightest is worth whatever the consequences and that's it that's all.

Just one drink . . . 'you're impaired'

blow 0.04 . . . . 'you shouldn't even sniff alcohol and drive ever'

Twitter checkstop locations . . . . .'throw them in jail with the DUI criminals too'

My opinion is that I really would prefer to live in a society that champions free speech, even if that means some numbnuts is going to broadcast where the checkstops are and even if some even dumber numbnuts who drives drunk reads the twitter feed and escapes capture. Quite frankly upholding freedom of speech should supplant the 'If banning this twitter feed could just ensure that one drunk driver gets punished then it's worth it' myopic logic.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the law still takes a dim view of aiding and abetting. It's my guess that if it could be proven that the drunk was in a state, capable of causing a serious accident, and it that there was enough evidence in the tweet to tie the tweeter and drunk together, that prosecution may be possible. However, it would probably be a landmark case, and not meant for all cases of tweeting the position of a checkstop in general.

Sending a blanket notice to the general public would not qualify as aiding and abetting if anyone decides to use it to avoid a checkstop while driving drunk. You have to prove intent.

You would quite literally have to send a direct message to someone and say "Hey [name], I know you're driving tonight, there's a checkstop on Macleod Trail near the Stampede grounds. Take another route home if you drink."

And even then, you run into this dilemma: If the guy gets home safely and is never caught, what evidence do we have he was actually driving drunk (ie: over 0.08 BAC)? All we know is that the guy consumed 'some' alcohol. We don't know if it was a little or a lot.

Can you hold someone responsible for aiding and abetting a crime we don't know even took place and hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Sending a blanket notice to the general public would not qualify as aiding and abetting if anyone decides to use it to avoid a checkstop while driving drunk. You have to prove intent.

You would quite literally have to send a direct message to someone and say "Hey [name], I know you're driving tonight, there's a checkstop on Macleod Trail near the Stampede grounds. Take another route home if you drink."

And even then, you run into this dilemma: If the guy gets home safely and is never caught, what evidence do we have he was actually driving drunk (ie: over 0.08 BAC)? All we know is that the guy consumed 'some' alcohol. We don't know if it was a little or a lot.

Can you hold someone responsible for aiding and abetting a crime we don't know even took place and hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Let's take the following example:

You were at a hockey game with a friend and there were lots of witnesses to substantiate you and your friend were severely intoxicated. You leave the game separately, and on the way home you tweet your friend, using his name, that there was a checkstop at a certain location. He then avoids the checkstop by taking another route home and ends up killing someone. Do you feel confident you will not be charged?

[geos]

When you read stuff like this, perhaps some will understand why others are skeptical about the current enforcement regime.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/So...285/story.html

Again, for those over 0.08 or even 0.05, I have no sympathy for and they should be banned for life from driving.

But I can understand why innocent individuals want to avoid such things. Never know what will happen. Could lose your license or car for nothing. Too risky.

[Rerun]

A lot of people on here don't see anything wrong with twittering check stop locations. I am not one of those people.

But lets take this one step further... what about if Flames management decided to make a public announcement at the end of home games, as to where the check stop locations are?

I'm sure there are a lot of people who drive home after the game after having one too many beers.

Would this be acceptable if the Flames organization did this... instead of some anonomous twitter?

I mean really... whats to stop bars from posting a list of check stop locations each night beside the exit door....

Perhaps they could say something like this...

"Don't drink and drive but if you insist on driving, here's where the check stops are:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Good Luck."

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Let's take the following example:

You were at a hockey game with a friend and there were lots of witnesses to substantiate you and your friend were severely intoxicated. You leave the game separately, and on the way home you tweet your friend, using his name, that there was a checkstop at a certain location. He then avoids the checkstop by taking another route home and ends up killing someone. Do you feel confident you will not be charged?

In short? Yes.

You cannot prove that, 1) The person was for sure going to take the street the checkstop was on, people take different roads for different reasons all the time. 2) It is not against the law to tell people where checkstops are. Your morals are not the same as law.

[Rerun]

I have the feeling that all the people who think that making the publication of check stop locations acceptable probably also think that check stops should be illegal also... after all the police are detaining you for no reason whatsoever when they pull you over ... they're just fishing for drunks and other offenders.. which is an infringement of our constitutional rights. ... ie. police have to have "cause".

[geos]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Would this be acceptable if the Flames organization did this... instead of some anonomous twitter?

It's a little different when a drinking etablishment does it versus the general public as a whole (Twitter). The intent is different. Like I've said in my last post, you actually have something to fear as an innocent individual, even if you've consumed nothing. That's the problem. You could still be detained in the bus, you should still be searched and whatever else for no reasonable grounds.

If I'm coming home late from work or something, I'd appreciate knowing where these hold ups are so I could avoid the hassle or potential risk of losing my car or something even at 0.00.

The issue is that with the police able to hand out punishment (a real Charter violation), you want to avoid the risk of a mistake. If there was a judge or an expedient way to appeal, that's another story. But if the risk is some guy is going to tow my car and cut up my license for nothing, that's too big of a risk to take, don't you think? Especially for someone that doesn't drink more than one or two drinks ever.

Too risky. Too much authority. So I'd prefer to avoid those situations.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

There should be a skill-testing question to access the twitter info, something that drunk logic couldn't decipher. A picture of a hideously not attractive women, or man. "Would you sleep with this person pictured above?" Infallible!

I was at a Christmas party, Dec. 17th, a couple arrived late. When questioned about there where-abouts, they mentioned they were held in a checkstop, and the location was...

I could have used this information to drink 10 beers in the next half hour and avoid that checkstop. Cut their tongues out would be a great way to avoid their dissidence in the future.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I have the feeling that all the people who think that making the publication of check stop locations acceptable probably also think that check stops should be illegal also... after all the police are detaining you for no reason whatsoever when they pull you over ... they're just fishing for drunks and other offenders.. which is an infringement of our constitutional rights. ... ie. police have to have "cause".

Bit of a blanket statement much?

I don't care if this clown is tweeting where the checkstop is, and I also don't think that checkstops should be illegal. I guess your theory isn't correct then?

Like I said before, I don't think drunks are checking twitter to see where checkstops are. They are dumb enough to drive drunk, I don't think they are smart enough to try and outsmart sober cops. They might get lucky once or twice but that's all it is; LUCK not smarts.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by moon

In Lethbridge I have been through 3 and seen at least two others but didn't have to go through them. The times I went through they seemed fairly useless but I guess I wasn't drunk so perhaps it was clear to the cop but it didn't seem to me that he would have really been able to tell unless I was plastered.

Lethbridge is obviously a lot different from Calgary because of its size but it amazes me that there aren't more checkstops and where they sometimes put the ones they do.

Whoop-up Checkstops back in the day. You can't escape them.

I had a buddy just speed right through one and the cops did not even notice... Wow.. lucky for him.. he was hammered. Never drove drunk again though.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by geos

If I'm coming home late from work or something, I'd appreciate knowing where these hold ups are so I could avoid the hassle or potential risk of losing my car or something even at 0.00.

I dunno, this is my experience with check stops. So far in my life, I have driven through 3 checkstops. Since I don't drink, every time it was 0.00. The cop just let me through, it was a maximum waste of about 2 minutes of my time, so hardly a hassle or a risk IMO. I'd gladly trade in that 2 minutes of inconvenience if it means cops are nabbing drunk drivers.

[bradster57]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Whoop-up Checkstops back in the day. You can't escape them.

I had a buddy just speed right through one and the cops did not even notice... Wow.. lucky for him.. he was hammered. Never drove drunk again though.

I seem to recall when I went to school in Lethbridge that the DJ at the Roadhouse would often announce Whoop-up checkstops just around last call.

[geos]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I dunno, this is my experience with check stops. So far in my life, I have driven through 3 checkstops. Since I don't drink, every time it was 0.00. The cop just let me through, it was a maximum waste of about 2 minutes of my time, so hardly a hassle or a risk IMO. I'd gladly trade in that 2 minutes of inconvenience if it means cops are nabbing drunk drivers.

I got the bus treatment for 45 minutes because I read 0.02 on the roadside after saying I had one drink. Copper says, we'll have to check that on the big machine. Fine. Oh ya, there is a 45 minute lineup.

Great.

Cops aren't nabbing drunk drivers though. I posted a link to a Herald article earlier in this thread. Out of 5,000+ people stopped in 2011, 5 were charged with impaired driving (who knows how many convicted? 2 or 3 probably?).

That's absurd. I'd have some sympathy for the enforcement method if it actually did, as you say, catch impaired drivers. But it doesn't. Instead, it violates my rights by subjecting me to an unreasonable search and detainment. Like I said before, if you want to bust criminal impaired drivers, get them in their cars patrolling and they'll find a few every night. We've all seen the weavers and light runners late on a Friday or Saturday night.

5 drivers out of 5,000. Is that reasonable grounds to stop, detain and require a breath sample of someone?

Hardly IMO. I'm a bit of libertarian so I'm skeptical of such things to begin with, but I don't believe we should so easily give up our rights for security, unless it can be proven there is a real benefit to our security. Which I don't think exists with this enforcement method.