[herbie]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

We are just more free over here Brenda. "reasonable grounds" is something that English speaking people have fought to preserve since 1215.

You cannot be randomly stopped and searched walking down the street.
You can't be pulled over at random and have your car searched.
Nor stopped walking down the sidewalk to show papers or submit DNA, or explain your wherabouts.
Without due cause.
Being the 12th car in line, or the next in the prime number sequence in line is not due cause.
Seeing you enter a car impaired. Or leaving the parking lot of a known drinking establishment or party is due cause.
Seeing you stub out a joint or smelling weed, or leaving the scene of a crime is due cause to search your car.
In a roadblock due cause is seeing smelling or noticing something illegal. Fuck it, if I'm driving a load of drunks home and the cop smells alcohol in the car, I concede that would be due cause (he can't tell WHO reeks) and I will have to comply. If he finds open alcohol. Then I didn't do my job (cause you ain't riding in my car with an open bottle no matter how much you whine)

But you won't be granting the power to someone to do something to me without due cause without one hell of a fight.
This is something Brenda may not understand about N America. Canadians may not have violently overthrown the Monarchs and despots who tell you what to do because they can but we insisted on it for just as long. Because in every historical instance the powers that be could do something, they did.

Take a look at the strangest coincidence of all: many of the posters who agree with allowing this abuse are posting on other threads against the requirement to even have a permit to have a gun!

[Brenda]

There are a lot of things I don't understand about N-A. Just like there are a lot of things you don't understand about Europe. Doesn't mean it is better or worse, just different.

[Proculation]

$1:

leaving the scene of a crime is due cause to search your car.

Not a law expert but I'm not sure about that one.

[Lemmy]

herbie herbie:

Seeing you stub out a joint or smelling weed, or leaving the scene of a crime is due cause to search your car.

Actually the Supreme Court ruled on that very point and they cannot search your car just on the smell of marijuana. They must see it, or presumably, see the smoke.

[uwish]

I think a law like this stinks, and would likely get thrown out in a constitutional challenge. It starts a very slippery slope, no grounds for this then what? we don't need grounds to search your house, to search this to subject you to that...

Once you start giving on these basic rights, the line slowly starts to move towards 'no rights'

That's why this stinks. I don't support it and I don't buy the 'if your doing nothing wrong, then why would you object' argument either. That is neither a reason nor justification that is just being lazy.

[PluggyRug]

Who are these small minded assholes attempting to erode my freedoms.

No this, no that, no nothing. I just hope the prick who thought up this ludicrous proposal gets caught for drunk driving.

How many nails can you put in a coffin.

[Scape]

What is the due cause that Revenue Canada uses for doing an audit? It knows people cheat on their taxes. We know people drive drunk because every year people are killed by them. So really, why are people not able to protest the fact they are being singled out to be audited? I mean they can audit if the see account irregularities no doubt but they also do it as a matter of routine in a random fashion. ANYONE could be picked. I have yet to see a successful court challenge to a RC audit and I can not fathom how that is a breach of ones privacy and they are delving into the most intimate financial matter one could possibly have!

Now no one dies from cheating on taxes that I know of yet this has been accepted as the norm. Someone care to explain how this is fundamentally different? I mean couldn't RC also run amok with your personal information? What keeps them in check also keeps all authority in check: regulation. I am sure there is corruption in RC just like there is with the police but the fundamentals are the same.

[Lemmy]

Scape Scape:

What is the due cause that Revenue Canada uses for doing an audit? It knows people cheat on their taxes. We know people drive drunk because every year people are killed by them. So really, why are people not able to protest the fact they are being singled out to be audited? I mean they can audit if the see account irregularities no doubt but they also do it as a matter of routine in a random fashion. ANYONE could be picked. I have yet to see a successful court challenge to a RC audit and I can not fathom how that is a breach of ones privacy and they are delving into the most intimate financial matter one could possibly have!

Now no one dies from cheating on taxes that I know of yet this has been accepted as the norm. Someone care to explain how this is fundamentally different? I mean couldn't RC also run amok with your personal information? What keeps them in check also keeps all authority in check: regulation. I am sure there is corruption in RC just like there is with the police but the fundamentals are the same.

An audit is like a spell-check. It's a verification whether you completed your documents properly. It's quality control, not at all the same as directing our police forces to perform random, unconstitutional searches and detentions.

[Brenda]

$1:

I just hope the prick who thought up this ludicrous proposal gets caught for drunk driving.

Ad random

[Mukluk]

Scape Scape:

What is the due cause that Revenue Canada uses for doing an audit? ...Someone care to explain how this is fundamentally different? ...I am sure there is corruption in RC just like there is with the police but the fundamentals are the same.

Validating the information on a document you signed (tax audit) is not the same as being stopped by the police for no reason to see if you are committing a crime.

Storing drugs in your rectum is also a crime that cannot be detected unless they check for it. Should they also adopt random searches for this?

I hear your point Scape, but I just don't agree that they are similar at all...


/m

[Bacardi4206]

Regina Regina:

So do you have a problem with the police walking into your house to take a look around for no reason?

I have a problem with police walking into my home for no reason, however that is not what is stated in this article or has anything to with this. This is cops pulling random people over for random breathalyzer tests which I do not have a problem with.

I'd rather be one of the random people being pulled over for a breathalyzer test even if I am late for something just for the increased chance it will better decrease car accidents. Since you posted that. I'll do the same and ask you a question.

So you do not have a problem with some drunk driver driving on a high-way that may contain your children? Like if they passed there drivers lisence or already got one and one day decided to take the high-way and some drunk driver is driving beside them and crashes into them because he was drunk. You are totally cool with that?

The fact is drunk driving is stupid, however people do it because they are lazy. They go to get a drink without thinking of what to do with there car afterwards. Once there done it's much easier just to get in there car instead of paying for parking, getting a cab and come picking it up afterwards or driving home and going to a local pub near there house and just walking home. Nobody ever thinks to do that firsthand. Taking care of there driving situation beforehand.

Drunk drivers endanger themselves and everybody on the road. I am completly fine with cops randomly pulling over people and giving them this test. What do I care since I am smart enough not to drink and drive. Mostly for the fact that I can't afford to get my car fixed I ever got into a accident. If some cop pulls me over for a random test. I am going to pass it and tests aren't long so it's a quick stop, test and than get back in my car and drive. Not a problem.

[ASLplease]

If some cop pulls me over for a random test, its a waste of tax payer money.

[Bacardi4206]

ASLplease ASLplease:

If some cop pulls me over for a random test, its a waste of tax payer money.

How is that a waste of tax payer money? Cops are doing there jobs and that is what we pay them for. Pulling over random people for suspected drunk driving helps increase the chance of catching drunk drivers which in return decrease the chances of car accidents. That is part of there jobs and that is what they are going to be doing.

A waste of tax payer money would be to continue allowing them to cruise around high-ways and roads in the off chance they actually see signs of drunk driving like swirving or catching somebody drinking something in the car. Which are horrible ways to catch drunk drivers as those chances aren't the best odds. That is a waste of tax payer money.

[ASLplease]

don't you get it? they are already allowed to pull someone over for suspected drunk driving. The proposal is about pulling people over that they don't suspect.

"Random" means no plan, no strategy, no efficiency, no law enforcement skills being used.......we are going to rely on the luck of the draw to catch the drunks.

[ASLplease]

why dont we set up a breathalizer kiosk on the side of the road and require all drivers to pull over and self test. This would be a hell of a lot more effective than police officers wandering around aimlessly.