Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 12-26-2018, 03:54 PM   #41
Barnet Flame
First Line Centre
 
Barnet Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnet - North London
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Out 403 View Post
There's no other way to describe this post other than naive.


I see why you say that. The action does need to be accompanied with commensurate controls.

If it isn’t, there will be abuse.

It is however, ridiculously easy to implement controls that detect indicators of abuse.
Barnet Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 03:57 PM   #42
White Out 403
Franchise Player
 
White Out 403's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame View Post
I see why you say that. The action does need to be accompanied with commensurate controls.

If it isn’t, there will be abuse.

It is however, ridiculously easy to implement controls that detect indicators of abuse.
Sure but, if anything has been demonstrated lately is that CPS has a hard time policing itself.
__________________
How 'bout them Bombers??
White Out 403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 03:57 PM   #43
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Out 403 View Post
The debate is if this is a violation of our charter rights. The benefit has nothing to do with that debate. That's not a "side".
Then I think you two are debating different things.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 04:06 PM   #44
Barnet Flame
First Line Centre
 
Barnet Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnet - North London
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Out 403 View Post
Sure but, if anything has been demonstrated lately is that CPS has a hard time policing itself.

They shouldn’t be policing themselves. There really needs to be strong independent scrutiny, with teeth.

I completely agree with you on how this can be and likely will be abused. But they don’t need this law in place to carry out this abuse.

However, the law, correctly applied will in my view be a net benefit. It has been elsewhere.

There is rarely if ever a process that is either implemented or applied that provides 100% benefit. But with this, it is possible to implement a control to demonstrate indicators of abuse of power to deter or at least reduce that abuse.
Barnet Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 04:06 PM   #45
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
This debate is as old as checkstops. Same old arguments defending them and opposing them. In modern liberal democracies, personal freedoms are steadily retreating and general public just eats governments' explanations and assurances of why it's good for "the People", as a group, rather than individuals.

In a true democracy, people must be trusted to do the right thing even understanding that they don't do the right thing sometimes. This is the foundation of a true democracy. There are literally thousands of examples of how various violations of personal freedoms could lead to prevention of crime, death, medical distress, property damage, economic hardship etc. Yet, each and every inch given up in the name of those benefits deteriorates a democratic society further towards state-control.
This seems somewhat naive. As lovely as it would be to believe that a true democracy - as you’ve described it - exists, it doesn’t. Do you have an example (100 points for a recent one) where your version of democracy works outside of a university classroom or textbook?

Being that we live in the real world, this is how things work. We give a little to get a little. That’s why we have restrictions on guns and other weapons, prescription drugs, operating vehicles, etc. This is how life works, there is no such thing as absolute freedom.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 04:06 PM   #46
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

I have no desire to give the state anything belonging to me (breathe, saliva or data) when I haven't committed a crime and for them to have no reasonable ground for assuming I have. Driving a car on the road isn't PC for a breathalyzer. This is disgusting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
corporatejay is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 04:10 PM   #47
PsYcNeT
Franchise Player
 
PsYcNeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Marseilles Of The Prairies
Exp:
Default

Ya'll should claim admiralty law and claim that your body is a state union and forcing a breathalyzer is an invasion of your state, and grounds for war and/or restitution.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm View Post
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
PsYcNeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 04:13 PM   #48
Barnet Flame
First Line Centre
 
Barnet Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnet - North London
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT View Post
Ya'll should claim admiralty law and claim that your body is a state union and forcing a breathalyzer is an invasion of your state, and grounds for war and/or restitution.


My body may not be a state, but it sure is in one.
Barnet Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 04:21 PM   #49
White Out 403
Franchise Player
 
White Out 403's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default

If the police can force you to take a breathalyzer, I'd like to hear the argument why they shouldn't then be allowed to search your vehicle for drugs.. weapons etc? What is the difference. If they're allowed to force you to give your breath... why wouldn't they be able to look in your trunk? Agency over your body clearly would come over agency over property rights wouldn't it?
__________________
How 'bout them Bombers??
White Out 403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 04:27 PM   #50
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Out 403 View Post
If the police can force you to take a breathalyzer, I'd like to hear the argument why they shouldn't then be allowed to search your vehicle for drugs.. weapons etc? What is the difference. If they're allowed to force you to give your breath... why wouldn't they be able to look in your trunk? Agency over your body clearly would come over agency over property rights wouldn't it?
I honestly wouldn’t care if they did that either.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 04:28 PM   #51
CaptainYooh
#1 Goaltender
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
This seems somewhat naive. As lovely as it would be to believe that a true democracy - as you’ve described it - exists, it doesn’t. Do you have an example (100 points for a recent one) where your version of democracy works outside of a university classroom or textbook?

Being that we live in the real world, this is how things work. We give a little to get a little. That’s why we have restrictions on guns and other weapons, prescription drugs, operating vehicles, etc. This is how life works, there is no such thing as absolute freedom.
Naive would be to think that in the real world the state would not abuse its power given the opportunity. History has proven the opposite conclusively.

No, I don't believe that absolute freedom is possible. Yes, I believe that presumption of innocence must not be violated in a democracy, no matter the objective and the benefits. See if you could plausibly argue against the following violations similar to the no-cause breath test:
  1. Preventatively checking anyone's phone for evidence of child porn without a cause;
  2. Preventatively searching anyone's home without a cause for possible illegal things (arms, drugs, laundered money);
  3. Preventatively searching anyone's computer without a cause to ensure they are not involved in any illegal activities...
Any of the above violations could return immensely productive benefits for the society as a whole - identify child predators, terrorists, potential mass-murderers, thieves etc. Why not do that? If someone is innocent, why should they be opposed?
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel, Philosopher

“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake, Writer
CaptainYooh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 04:32 PM   #52
White Out 403
Franchise Player
 
White Out 403's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
I honestly wouldn’t care if they did that either.
How about the police searching neighborhoods at random? They would come into your home and have an hour to search and you couldn't stop them because the whole neighborhood was being searched
__________________
How 'bout them Bombers??
White Out 403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 04:40 PM   #53
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
Naive would be to think that in the real world the state would not abuse its power given the opportunity. History has proven the opposite conclusively.

No, I don't believe that absolute freedom is possible. Yes, I believe that presumption of innocence must not be violated in a democracy, no matter the objective and the benefits. See if you could plausibly argue against the following violations similar to the no-cause breath test:
  1. Preventatively checking anyone's phone for evidence of child porn without a cause;
  2. Preventatively searching anyone's home without a cause for possible illegal things (arms, drugs, laundered money);
  3. Preventatively searching anyone's computer without a cause to ensure they are not involved in any illegal activities...
Any of the above violations could return immensely productive benefits for the society as a whole - identify child predators, terrorists, potential mass-murderers, thieves etc. Why not do that? If someone is innocent, why should they be opposed?
I get the argument, I just think on it relies on a lot of leaps. We could discuss this move in particular without jumping to “what if one day the police can do a cavity search whenever they want??” but it doesn’t seem like people are interested in doing that.

Checkstops are pretty strategically placed as it is to catch drunk drivers. I went through 2 this summer after having gone through zero previously. I did the breathalyser both times. I was fine both times.

Why don’t we just remove the police’s right to perform a breathalyser period? If someone says no, why should they have to?

Where’s your limit otherwise in a loss of freedom vs population protection? Should we even have to register or insure cars?
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 04:41 PM   #54
mrdonkey
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Out 403 View Post
How about the police searching neighborhoods at random? They would come into your home and have an hour to search and you couldn't stop them because the whole neighborhood was being searched
30 seconds to blow into a tube at a checktop you'll run into maybe once every 10 years, and we've now degenerated into an Orwellian nightmare.

Welcome to the internet.
mrdonkey is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to mrdonkey For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 04:45 PM   #55
White Out 403
Franchise Player
 
White Out 403's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdonkey View Post
30 seconds to blow into a tube at a checktop you'll run into maybe once every 10 years, and we've now degenerated into an Orwellian nightmare.

Welcome to the internet.
Is there a stronger word for irony? The person accusing me of orwellian predictions willing to cede personal freedoms for perceived safety benefits
__________________
How 'bout them Bombers??
White Out 403 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to White Out 403 For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 04:49 PM   #56
CaptainYooh
#1 Goaltender
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
...

Why don’t we just remove the police’s right to perform a breathalyser period? If someone says no, why should they have to?..
And this is how we get to the probable cause. They must need a probable cause - erratic driving, warning telephone call, anything to suggest that a driver could be under influence. Then, it's a justified check of a suspect due to his/her actions clearly endangering public safety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
...
Where’s your limit otherwise in a loss of freedom vs population protection? Should we even have to register or insure cars?
That's rather a broad discussion. I firmly believe in the "live and let live" principle of societal governance. You are visibly on the "government knows better" side of things.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel, Philosopher

“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake, Writer
CaptainYooh is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 04:55 PM   #57
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
And this is how we get to the probable cause. They must need a probable cause - erratic driving, warning telephone call, anything to suggest that a driver could be under influence. Then, it's a justified check of a suspect due to his/her actions clearly endangering public safety.
So you’re ok with someone driving drunk if they can manage the vehicle? If they aren’t doing anything suspicious, it’s all good? Not everyone who drives drunk is swerving around or have someone phone them in, so they should be free to continue their drive home until they screw up, yes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
That's rather a broad discussion. I firmly believe in the "live and let live" principle of societal governance. You are visibly on the "government knows better" side of things.
Not at all. I’m on the side that believes this is a very minor loss of personal freedom for what amounts to a greater overall benefit to society. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing, Orwell vs Lawless utopia. It’s ok to actually discuss an issue with nuance and talk about this issue for what it is (you might have to take a breathalyser when you’re driving) than blow it into some grand loss of democracy.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 04:55 PM   #58
mrdonkey
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Out 403 View Post
Is there a stronger word for irony? The person accusing me of orwellian predictions willing to cede personal freedoms for perceived safety benefits
It's a fairly minor, non-invasive inconvenience with evidence-based results. So yes, I'm personally fine with giving up this tiny piece of my own freedom if it means the police can get someone else off the road who shouldn't be there. It's the age old debate of how much of your personal freedom you think is acceptable to concede to the state. Some will tolerate more than others. And because this system has been successful elsewhere for a long time, I'm not convinced by the "slippery slope" argument.

Mind you, I've lived in third world countries where the police walk around with assault rifles strapped to their backs and will throw you in jail for minor traffic violations unless you pay them off. So I'm quite thankful for the legal system we have, and this whole situation comes across to me like mountains and molehills.
mrdonkey is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to mrdonkey For This Useful Post:
Old 12-26-2018, 05:00 PM   #59
Snuffleupagus
First Line Centre
 
Snuffleupagus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdonkey View Post
this whole situation comes across to me like mountains and molehills.
And a snowman starts as a snowball
Snuffleupagus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2018, 05:01 PM   #60
OMG!WTF!
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

It gets kind of frustrating hearing "it only takes a moment of your time" argument. That's total bull. Every check stop I've ever been through I've been waived through without even rolling down my window along with most everyone else around me. And it still takes twenty minutes to get through. If you stop every single car and take a "moment" of everyone's time it's going to take hours to get everyone through.

It's not just check stops. Any lawful detainment can get you a test. I just hope cops still use a bit of common sense and look for suspicion first.

I also guarantee no one would be fine with the inconvenience if they received a false positive test. And that happens an awful lot.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:27 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016