Double Standards Anyone

[scribblet]

Well,Ignatieff turns a blind eye when one of his own caucus members stands accused of failing to comply with a police officer's request for a breathalyzer

Pablo Rodriguez's oddly soft ride

National Post Published: Wednesday, May 19, 2010

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=3045828#ixzz0oNdSGwzl

Double-standard, anyone? While former minister of state for women's issues Helena Guergis was unceremoniously dumped by her party over allegations of ethical improprieties involving her husband, across the aisle another MP faces criminal charges, yet still retains both his critic's post and caucus seat.

We are referring to the case of Montreal MP Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal critic for Canadian Heritage and Official Languages. A month ago, Mr. Rodriguez had a car accident in the residential Montreal community of Notre-Dame-de-Grace. As the MP had been (by his own admission) drinking that evening, the officer called to the scene asked him to take a breathalyzer test. Apparently, Mr. Rodriguez did not get the job done. ( "My attempts to blow into the device ... were not deemed satisfactory," is how the MP himself cryptically put it.) He was charged with failing to co-operate with a police officer -- a crime that, in this context, could carry the same penalties as drunk driving if he is convicted. Last Friday the MP held a press conference to explain the situation and state that he does not intend to resign either from caucus or his critic's post while he fights the charges.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/charged+with+failing+obey/3031092/story.html#ixzz0o3kzxkTU

MP charged with failing to obey cop

'Misunderstanding' with Breathalyzer test

By HUBERT BAUCH, The Gazette May 15, 2010

Local Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez disclosed yesterday that he has been charged with refusing to obey a police officer following a car accident last month.

[nicky10013]

Well,Ignatieff turns a blind eye when one of his own caucus members stands accused of failing to comply with a police officer's request for a breathalyzer

Pablo Rodriguez's oddly soft ride

National Post Published: Wednesday, May 19, 2010

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=3045828#ixzz0oNdSGwzl

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/charged+with+failing+obey/3031092/story.html#ixzz0o3kzxkTU

MP charged with failing to obey cop

'Misunderstanding' with Breathalyzer test

By HUBERT BAUCH, The Gazette May 15, 2010

Not surprisingly a partisan hack only posts half the story.

Rodriguez told a news conference that the charge stems from a misunderstanding, that he was asked to take a Breathalyzer test and readily agreed to do so, only he was unable to blow into the apparatus hard enough to satisfy the officer on the scene and was subsequently charged with failing to comply.

[g_bambino]

Not surprisingly a partisan hack only posts half the story.

Only a partisan hack would think a partisan hack posted only half a story when he didn't. Read the OP again; pay close attention for the words: "apparently, Mr. Rodriguez did not get the job done. ('My attempts to blow into the device... were not deemed satisfactory,' is how the MP himself cryptically put it."

[scribblet]

Only a partisan hack would conveniently forget that we are not allowed to post whole articles on here, only a paragraph or so of the article.

So will the Liberals be frothing at the mouth for this MP's resignation - don't think so !

[Topaz]

Only a partisan hack would conveniently forget that we are not allowed to post whole articles on here, only a paragraph or so of the article.

So will the Liberals be frothing at the mouth for this MP's resignation - don't think so !

I'll wait to see what happpens to the Tory who was a lawyer involved with the scam in Alberta with the Bank of Montreal, I believe.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not speaking from experience, so maybe I'm missing something...but if you breathe incorrectly into a breathalyzer, would the officer not ask you to try again?

Would an officer only say you were being uncooperative if it seemed to him or her that you were consistently trying to avoid the process of breathing into the device properly?

It can't be a difficult process: catastrophically drunken people do it all the time.

Innocent 'till proven guilty, but this guy sure sounds guilty, doesn't he?

Edited June 9, 2010 by bloodyminded

[scribblet]

I'll wait to see what happpens to the Tory who was a lawyer involved with the scam in Alberta with the Bank of Montreal, I believe.

The BMO has allready said he was not involved with the scam.

[Shady]

I'm not speaking from experience, so maybe I'm missing something...but if you breathe incorrectly into a breathalyzer, would the officer not ask you to try again?

Would an officer only say you were being uncooperative if it seemed to him or her that you were consistently trying to avoid the process of breathing into the device properly?

It can't be a difficult process: catastrophically drunken people do it all the time.

Innocent 'till proven guilty, but this guy sure sounds guilty, doesn't he?

I agree. I can't see how somebody couldn't properly blow into a breathalyzer unless they were purposely not doing it correctly, or had some kind of medical condition. Seeing as though Mr. Rodriguez is only 42 years old, I can't see how that could be an issue.

Therefore, I don't think it's out of the question to think he was purposely trying to avoid the process. Probably because he knew he was either close to, or over the legal limit.

[madmax]

I agree. I can't see how somebody couldn't properly blow into a breathalyzer unless they were purposely not doing it correctly, or had some kind of medical condition. Seeing as though Mr. Rodriguez is only 42 years old, I can't see how that could be an issue.

Therefore, I don't think it's out of the question to think he was purposely trying to avoid the process. Probably because he knew he was either close to, or over the legal limit.

I am not certain what the double standard is.

Jaffer said he didn't have coke, never was convicted of speeding let alone being drunk as he FAILED a breathalyser.

Bryant drives into the back of a cyclist twice, the 2nd time being a very nasty hit.

Neither were convicted of anything nor took responsibility for anything.

So you got another politician thought to be drunk behind the wheel.

Much like those two above, little will happen and seriously whats the worst case scenario.

They get convicted like Campbell in BC, get re elected and run the country like the convicted drunk he was.

Enjoy your bunch of clowns and losers.

[Jack Weber]

I'm not speaking from experience, so maybe I'm missing something...but if you breathe incorrectly into a breathalyzer, would the officer not ask you to try again?

Would an officer only say you were being uncooperative if it seemed to him or her that you were consistently trying to avoid the process of breathing into the device properly?

It can't be a difficult process: catastrophically drunken people do it all the time.

Innocent 'till proven guilty, but this guy sure sounds guilty, doesn't he?

One time,when I was in college,I was so catastrophically drunk I woke up in a dumpster because I thought it was the entrance to my downstairs apartment...

[bloodyminded]

One time,when I was in college,I was so catastrophically drunk I woke up in a dumpster because I thought it was the entrance to my downstairs apartment...

that sounds familiar, believe me....

[Jack Weber]

that sounds familiar, believe me....

Did you wake up with a banana peel stuck to your face?

[scribblet]

The double standard is how this is being treated by the opposition, if it had been a conservative MP they would be howling for blood and a resignation.

[Smallc]

The double standard is how this is being treated by the opposition, if it had been a conservative MP they would be howling for blood and a resignation.

errr...that's because the Conservatives are the government. Were the roles reversed, things would be no different....although, the Liberals did criticize the Conservatives for throwing Geurgis out of caucus without any reason.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Smallc

[Oleg Bach]

Liberals are not very big on good behavior or compliance to law and order. Remember how the old Shelia Copps would physically leap across the rail to assault persons she disagreed with? Remember how her boss the Prime Minister lacked such self control that he lost all governmental dignity and began to strangle a protester that pissed him off - BOTH of these past misdeeds were illegal acts. It is typical for liberal authorities to thwart the law...we have cocaine - we have strippers - we have bribes and we have those whose personal and professional political ambition overwhelms their sense of propriety.. Liberals do not have a sense of public service - just self service.

[William Ashley]

Well,Ignatieff turns a blind eye when one of his own caucus members stands accused of failing to comply with a police officer's request for a breathalyzer

Pablo Rodriguez's oddly soft ride

National Post Published: Wednesday, May 19, 2010

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=3045828#ixzz0oNdSGwzl

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/charged+with+failing+obey/3031092/story.html#ixzz0o3kzxkTU

MP charged with failing to obey cop

'Misunderstanding' with Breathalyzer test

By HUBERT BAUCH, The Gazette May 15, 2010

I'm pretty sure that you "can" refuse, and ask to be taken to the station and undergo the test in a presence of a lawyer. I'm not 100% sure on this but this is what I have encountered as the "best" option when pulled over, if you do not trust the situation.

The machine they use at the station is more accurate.

http://www.kruselaw.ca/index.php?page=breathalyzer_intoxilyzer_test

the roadside test is not "lawful" or real, it is arbitrary and inexact.

http://www.kruselaw.ca/index.php?page=roadside_screening_device

see this though.

This is not meant to be counselling.

But you can "act really drunk" if you think you are in the warning range - to buy the time between where you are and the station - as you may not have the intial test... this will give you precious minutes to lower your blood alcohol level.

If the officer "has reasonable grounds" to beleive you are intoxicated, the initial test may be waived. As stated if in the warning range, this may help...

Of course if you are wasted you are pretty much screwed and shouldn't be driving anyway.

bear in mind.. doing this might be considered - something like I dunno interferance, or obstruction... I'm not sure on this though.. but protecting oneself is done more ways than one, and acting isn't illegal, as we all have our own unique behaviours, and we shouldn't be forced to represent ourselves the worst posible way for ourself when interacting with the law.

Aferall it ain't a crime if it doesn't meet the requirements of a crime. And preventing a crime, shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, or illegal.

This ain't saying stalling for time between the station test and being pulled over is a sure thing.. but it could help.

Edited June 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[Oleg Bach]

H

[Oleg Bach]

H

He did not refuse to blow - he pretended to blow...I can just imagine how drunk and arrogant his jerk was - let me be the fly on the wall that is his interior skull..." These are cops - cops are stupid - I am smart - I will fool them"

[Guest TrueMetis]

errr...that's because the Conservatives are the government. Were the roles reversed, things would be no difference....although, the Liberals did criticize the Conservatives for throwing Geurgis out of caucus without any reason.

Wait, then what's the double standard?

[Oleg Bach]

Wait, then what's the double standard?

L