|
|
Is this fair?
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status:
Offline
|
|
B.C. kids died in 'freak' weather mishap - British Columbia - CBC News
I need to recap BC and Canadian laws first before I go into the article. Canadian drinking laws says impaired driving beings at .08 and I believe this is also the number in the US as well. Recently BC enacted tougher drinking laws calling .05 a warning zone. Any thing at .05, .06, .07 results in a suspension, car being towed and fines. We are the only place in North America with such a retarded law. I call it retarded because its a "WARN" zone that you are approaching the legal limit of .08. I consider it the same as giving some one a warning speeding ticket at 50 MPH in a 60 zone.
Anyways this accident in the above story occurred before the new law so its irrelevant. This woman suffered a terrible car crash on a mountainous highway during a pretty bad winter storm. She had lost control of her vehicle and crashed on black ice which resulted in the death of two of her kids. Personally I think that is punishment enough for a mother. But now she is being dragged through court for drunk driving even though her blood alcohol level was below the .08 legal limit. I don't support drinking and driving, at any amount. But I think its a bit unfair to drag her into court for a accident that occurred in bad weather and ice conditions and she already has to live with the loss of 2 of her children. My tune would be different had she been over the legal limit of course.
Yes that is all ice in that photo
Video clip linked to a better picture of the road
Clare Bekkers Trial Begins - YouTube
From my view it was just a shitty accident nothing more.
|
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
So Canada has no prohibition on laws being applied ex post facto?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status:
Offline
|
|
The .05 thing does not apply she was charged with impaired driving in 2008 even though it was below .08 and that it was clearly a bad weather accident. I just pointed out the .05 because in the new story it has if she had been pulled over today she would have faced the BS of the new .05 law. Was clarifying what that is since BC is the only place with it.
|
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Looks like a waste of tax dollars based on your description. If they can't prove impairment because of drinking (and the weather saw to that) then the case will eventually fall apart. Whenever logic sets in. So it's all a waste of time on top of punishing her twice, as you say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status:
Offline
|
|
Exactly. Its automatic because a death was involved, but considering the road conditions and weather the fact she was below the legal limit and it was just trace amounts of other substances in her system its impossible it will lead to any convictions at all.
|
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|