I'm not really sure exactly what to think about you ignorant post, a few things come to mind. Trolling, idiotic, paranoid, you were caught driving impaired, your tinfoil hat fell off, these are some of the possibilities.
Why the personal attack on Raymond, because he doesn't agree with your view that the system in its entirety is corrupt? Really? That's absurd and rife with paranoia!
Even though there is some truth to your opinion that some people handle alcohol better than others the line has to be drawn somewhere and has been set to the majority but to think it's a victimless crime when they are caught at a check stop or random traffic stop is, well just plain ridiculous. It means they were caught breaking the law before they killed someone.
It's also against the law to walk around downtown with a loaded gun even though no one was shot, no victim, would you be ok with that?
Also, how do you explain the son of one of the richest families in Canada pleading guilty to killing four people, why didn't he buy his way out of it, I look forward to how you might explain why he's chose to face 10 years in prison instead of taking advantage of the corrupt system.
How many drinks did you consume before making this post?SuperchargedRS wrote:I'm not too sure if it's just that you've been around the system so long that you inadvertently drank the koolaid or that your for profit motives are just comming to light, you appear to be a intelligent person and I have a hard time believing your at that naive. For one, someone who blows a .08 vs another person who blows a .08 always being the same level of intoxicated just isn't medically proven, and anyone who has ever been to a bar or around a handful of people who drink knows different people hold their booze differently.
...to say I'm drunk because you mindless follow a little box even when your subject is able to pass all your physical filed sobriety tests, THATS a crime, complete with a victim. And please don't say that someone driving down the road just fine after drinking is the same thing as someone who t bones a car, that's right up there with saying all guns are dangerous because one person shot someone. ... how many DUI cases have you had where there was no REAL victim, ie the person was charged with DUI even though he didn't swerve into another car, hit anyone, basically outside from what a machine told the cop wasn't even "acting drunk"?!!
What flights are you scheduled to operate in the next few weeks? Honestly, I don't want any of my family members to be subject to the risk that you obviously pose to the public.
HIRaymond Hall wrote:After practising law for more that 25 years, seeing justice meted out while working both inside the system and outside the system, I must respectfully disagree with you. It is correct to say that the quality of one's legal representation can make a substantial difference to the way a charge evolves and in the eventual judicial decision, depending on the facts and on the legal knowledge and advocacy skills of one's counsel with respect to the applicable law. But there is no magic bullet. One cannot buy oneself an outcome, at any price, no matter who you know.SuperchargedRS wrote:It just a matter of your Rolodex and bank roll, you can buy as much justice as you can afford. I'd wager if you have a few cop friends and or $20,000 ish to invest in justice, you'll be fine.
One of my mentors succinctly put it this way. He replied to me one day when we were entering court after I had suggested that we were in a very strong position on the facts and law of the case in particular, "Don't ever think when you walk through these doors that it is going to be anything but a crap shoot. Be prepared, but be prepared to be challenged and surprised."
The proposition that justice is for sale simply does not accord with my belief, with my knowledge or with my experience, period. Your suggestion that the Canadian legal system is inherently corrupt amounts to a slander on the reputation of most, if not all of the participants. Many of my law classmates are judges. One is currently a Minister of Justice. One is the Chief Justice of Manitoba. Each, whom I have watched for decades, without exception, has resolutely defended their professional integrity and professional performance, without exception. One of my former partners, on appointment as a Federal Court judge, gave up one of his most cherished passions, golf. He quit the local golf club because, as he explained to me, he simply could not take the risk of appearing on the bench before anyone, lawyer or client, whom he had been associated with in his former personal life, no matter how remote.
Even the Prime Minister failed to overcome the law when his proposed appointee to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied by the Court on the basis of a simple motion filed by a lone private attorney. If there ever were an example of how little privilege matters in the law, that must surely be one.Suggest that to someone who just lost all of their children to a drunk driver.SuperchargedRS wrote:Also this might not even be a real DUI or a crime.One of the key elements of statutory and criminal code prohibitions is deterrence, particularly where the perpetrator's actions result in an inability to make rational decisions and/or to react in a safe and timely manner to events on the highway. Society is the victim. The risk of grievous bodily harm or loss of life is sufficient.SuperchargedRS wrote:I believe you need a victim for a crime and I didn't see where any persons or property were damaged.Even if others don't perceive the impact, the machine knows, and performance is inversely related to the amount of alcohol in one's system, regardless of the perception of others.SuperchargedRS wrote:As for being drunk, I don't know, there are some folks who have like one drink and are a mess, others who can drink all day long and go about their day without even being able to tell that had a single drink.Wrong again. The "Driving under influence law thing" is all about preventing the slaughter that would otherwise occur without effective laws to counter it. Convictions for impaired driving do not even necessarily result in fines, and there is no revenue generation resulting from incarceration--in fact, the cost to society is substantial. There is no illusion about the safety of an impaired driver--science, facts and history resolved that debate long ago.SuperchargedRS wrote:The DUI thing has more to do with revenue generation then the illusion of safety.
The strategies in this section are effective for reducing or preventing drunk driving. Different strategies may require different resources for implementation or have different levels of impact. Find strategies that are right for your state.
Drunk driving laws make it illegal nationwide to drive with a BAC at or above 0.08%. For people under 21, “zero tolerance” laws make it illegal to drive with any measurable amount of alcohol in their system. These laws, along with laws that maintain the minimum legal drinking age at 21, are in place in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and have had a clear effect on highway safety, saving tens of thousands of lives since their implementation.
A hangover is impairment.
If you are not willing to follow that very simple rule either quit drinking or quit flying.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.