[Zipperfish]

Meh. Getting a bit carried away, at least here in BC. They dropped the limit to 0.05--which, I read today, you could easily pass by eating two olives from a martini. Solicitor General Rich Coleman stills says you can have a couple of drinks with dinner. Really, Rich? Will you cover me for that? Because there's no breathalyzer in the restaurant, so who knows.

Statistically, 0.08 was a good number. Once you get down to about 0.05, the level of impairment is pretty low and it's difficult to blame booze for the accident (though, never big fans of science in BC, they automatically blame alcohol for any accident in which police suspect any alcohol at any content is involved, thus artificially jacking the stats they want to get).

Impairment at 0.05 is less than impairment due to having a conversation with your passenger.

If they want to make it fair, just lock people up who kill kids in car accident if it is determined they are at fault--whether due to alcohol, undue attention, speeding, yelling at their kids, driving with a medical condition, or under the influence of drugs (legal or illegal).

[Freakinoldguy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Meh. Getting a bit carried away, at least here in BC. They dropped the limit to 0.05--which, I read today, you could easily pass by eating two olives from a martini. Solicitor General Rich Coleman stills says you can have a couple of drinks with dinner. Really, Rich? Will you cover me for that? Because there's no breathalyzer in the restaurant, so who knows.

Statistically, 0.08 was a good number. Once you get down to about 0.05, the level of impairment is pretty low and it's difficult to blame booze for the accident (though, never big fans of science in BC, they automatically blame alcohol for any accident in which police suspect any alcohol at any content is involved, thus artificially jacking the stats they want to get).

Impairment at 0.05 is less than impairment due to having a conversation with your passenger.

If they want to make it fair, just lock people up who kill kids in car accident if it is determined they are at fault--whether due to alcohol, undue attention, speeding, yelling at their kids, driving with a medical condition, or under the influence of drugs (legal or illegal).

Bingo.

The only reason they dropped the alcohol level to .05 and left impaired at .08 is purely financial. They get one hell of alot more money out of jacking someone over who had a drink with dinner than fighting an impaired driving charge in court.

Then to top it off they basically give no sentence to someone who commits vehicular homicide and yet Coleman still wants us to believe they're getting tough on drunk driving.

If they were serious about stopping drinking drivers they'd have made it a criminal offense to have an alcohol level at .05 or above, not this grey area law that makes them money and they can change at will to suit the public outrage.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Meh. Getting a bit carried away, at least here in BC. They dropped the limit to 0.05--which, I read today, you could easily pass by eating two olives from a martini.

Methinks somebody had more than a couple of olives to make a statement like that.

I'm not sure what was wrong with the 24 hr roadside suspension they had before - take the licences and impound the car. Heck, 12 hours ought to do it. But none of this discretion bullshit - you blow .05 and you walk for a day.

[djakeydd]

As usual, this accident prompted another knee jerk reaction by the bc libs so they can all feel self righteously warm and fuzzy and institute a .05% bl/alc limit. This will not help and it will not bring this girl back. Once again justice is served cold and useless.

[herbie]

I missed part of the trial coverage.
She wasn't arrested at the scene, wasn't breathalyzed. Wasn't blood sampled.
She admitted later she'd had some wine. An undercover cop says she told her she's had three glasses of wine.
How did they determine she was impaired at the time? Did SHE admit she was? Did a new witness appear giving testimony she showed visible signs of impairment at the time of the accident?
Or did they AS USUAL determine she admitted to having some wine and had an accident therefore she was impaired with no evidence?

My mother drove for 50 years and at anytime was capable of losing control of her car on a speed bump and killing 300 people stone cold sober. They just kept upping her insurance and renewing her license until we asked her doctor to step in.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Methinks somebody had more than a couple of olives to make a statement like that.

It was yesterday's Vancouver Sun.

[andyt]

herbie herbie:

I missed part of the trial coverage.
She wasn't arrested at the scene, wasn't breathalyzed. Wasn't blood sampled.
She admitted later she'd had some wine. An undercover cop says she told her she's had three glasses of wine.
How did they determine she was impaired at the time? Did SHE admit she was? Did a new witness appear giving testimony she showed visible signs of impairment at the time of the accident?
Or did they AS USUAL determine she admitted to having some wine and had an accident therefore she was impaired with no evidence?

My mother drove for 50 years and at anytime was capable of losing control of her car on a speed bump and killing 300 people stone cold sober. They just kept upping her insurance and renewing her license until we asked her doctor to step in.

She was doing 90kph in a 50 zone, and lost control of her car going over some speed bumps which she knew were there - it was a familiar road to her.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

Methinks somebody had more than a couple of olives to make a statement like that.

It was yesterday's Vancouver Sun.

That's strange. The same Vancouver Sun told me (not yesterday) that I could probably have 3 drinks and not be over .05.

At .05, you are impaired to some degree. So I think a 24 hr suspension is warranted. Don't know why they had to up the penalties so much. Much more effective would be upping enforcement. Impound the car and the licence, and a 24 hr suspension would be entirely adequate deterrent.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

Methinks somebody had more than a couple of olives to make a statement like that.

It was yesterday's Vancouver Sun.

Have you got a link? I quickly looked thru the first 3 sections of the Sun and couldn't find the article.

[herbie]

$1:

She was doing 90kph in a 50 zone, and lost control of her car going over some speed bumps which she knew were there - it was a familiar road to her.

That constitutes proof of impairment to you? And several posts back you're comparing sentencing for a death during an assault with sentencing for this?
That's why you're not a Judge.

[EyeBrock]

People literally get away with murder on a weekly basis when it comes to impaired driving. Our courts loathe to convict impaired drivers.

You get the legal system you deserve.

[andyt]

herbie herbie:

$1:

She was doing 90kph in a 50 zone, and lost control of her car going over some speed bumps which she knew were there - it was a familiar road to her.

That constitutes proof of impairment to you? And several posts back you're comparing sentencing for a death during an assault with sentencing for this?
That's why you're not a Judge.

I was comparing sentencing for an assault of one punch that resulted in the victim falling backward and striking his head, causing permanent damage. No death. The judge did consider her impaired, that was in large part what his sentence was based on. He said the sentence had to send a stern message that denounced impairment. Looks like driving drunk and out of control and killing a little girl is less than 1/2 times as bad as hitting a guy once and saying "the faggot deserved it". I don't agree with that.

You're right, it's good I'm not a judge. The pc brigade would be getting out the torches and pitchforks.

[Bodah]

andyt andyt:

You're right, it's good I'm not a judge. The pc brigade would be getting out the torches and pitchforks.

Nah, you'd be a good judge you just need a toque is all.

[Johnny_H]

Nothing is a surprise anymore when you live in the country where a guy who decapitates someone and parades their head around the bus then tries to eat it. Is most likely going to be free within 10 years.

This isn't a statement against whether the guy should have been put in a institution rather than prison. I'm with that... however the last news story I read says "hes showing signs of improvement". Theres no cure for that kind of fucked up and I'll quote Elliot Leyton in summary "The only value these members of society have is to be objects of study". That isn't an exact quote but I couldn't agree with it more.

So this broad getting 2.5 years for a DUI homicide doesn't shock me, though it is still none the less disgusting.

[andyt]

Johnny_H Johnny_H:

Nothing is a surprise anymore when you live in the country where a guy who decapitates someone and parades their head around the bus then tries to eat it. Is most likely going to be free within 10 years.

This isn't a statement against whether the guy should have been put in a institution rather than prison. I'm with that... however the last news story I read says "hes showing signs of improvement". Theres no cure for that kind of fucked up and I'll quote Elliot Leyton in summary "The only value these members of society have is to be objects of study". That isn't an exact quote but I couldn't agree with it more.

So this broad getting 2.5 years for a DUI homicide doesn't shock me, though it is still none the less disgusting.

He should be in an institution. But he should have a life sentence - means he's watched for the rest of his life. If medications make him "well" then ensure he's released to a situation where he is monitored that he's taking his meds on a daily basis. If he stops, back in he goes - yesterday. That way we don't punish him for what he did when he didn't know better, but we also don't just forget about what he did and let him go on his merry way to do it again.