Peter Goldring

[fellowtraveller]

Yes there absolutely is evidence he was impared!

If he was was severely impaired he'd have been charged with that too.

Impaired driving is a different charge than driving while over .08, and can be done in addition to the refusing to provide a breathalyzer charge. .

If the cops supsect you of drinking and driving, they require you to take a breathalyzer. If you refuse the breathalyzer, the consequences are the same as if you had failed the breathalyzer: Criminal Code charges, licence suspension, fine. You can also get jail time on the first or any subsequent offence.

I doubt this will get to a trial, very few 'failure to blow' defences get that far. You did not blow? Guilty of same. Pretty simple.

Impact on govt? Zero.

[WWWTT]

I doubt this will get to a trial, very few 'failure to blow' defences get that far. You did not blow? Guilty of same. Pretty simple.

Impact on govt? Zero.

Guilty of same=evidence of same!

Impact on government?Freekin tons!

Actually it would have bein better if Goldring blew!If he blew ok then we probably would not of even heard about this incident.If he blew a 24hr suspension then its over.If he bew worse then that,same result.But because he refused this debate will continue and continue and continue.Do you somehow beieve that a never ending debate can somehow have a better outcome for the conservatives?

This guy messed up.I have even heard of people who blew over and had the charges dropped because the police failed to prove that the driver was actually impaired.

It is possible that Goldring did try to provide a sample but could not adequately push out the adequate CFM to register and was then given a charge.But if thats not the case then I can't imagine how the charges would be dropped.Typically MPs who are charged see their charges dropped,but if these charges stick then its gonna hurt the conservatives!

WWWTT

[punked]

First I heard of the charge.

Refusing to blow is the same charge anywhere in Canada, a criminal code offence.

I have no idea why he would quit over it.

He is the guy who wrote the bill to try and allow the police to make everyone blow at random stops wither there is or isn't a reason for it.

[cybercoma]

Ya actually it seems the conservatives can't go more than a month without one of their MP's/ministers making a gaff.

WWWTT

The precedent has already been sent. A minority government can be found in contempt of parliament, be brought down by the opposition, then be rewarded with a "Strong, Stable, Majority" government.

[fellowtraveller]

But because he refused this debate will continue and continue and continue.Do you somehow beieve that a never ending debate can somehow have a better outcome for the conservatives?

This guy messed up.I have even heard of people who blew over and had the charges dropped because the police failed to prove that the driver was actually impaired.

The only debate is in your cranium.

It is easy to see why, you do not understand the difference between impairment and the other charges.

The Corwn dioes not have to prove impairment in either 'driving over .08' or for 'refusing to provide a breathlyzer' sample.

In the first case, having a over .08 charge takes away all possible defences like 'I was over .08 but I am an experienced drinker and Completely in control and therefore not a hazard'. The law does not care about yoyur level of competence or imnpairment, just that chemically you have tested over .08. It does not matter if you could do complex calculus in yoru head or are face down in the ditch, impaired or not impaired- if you are over .08you are guilty.

Same with Goldrings charge, refusing to blow. They don't address impairment, they just address the yes or no question.

'Are you a peace officer?'

'Yes'

'Did you legally require Goldring to provide a breath sample'

'Yes'

'Did he comply'?

'No'

Result: guilty, and the penalties are the same as if he had blown over .08. NObody knows or cares if he was impaired, that is a different charge used under different cicumstances.

And the result of that penalty will be the same for the Tories: nothing.

[cybercoma]

Ya you know what-your borderline insulting the intelligence of Canadian voters.

I won't forget this and many other Canadians will not either!

But I do agree that Goldring is gone.After a whirlwind media circus of his trail!

WWWTT

You're making a mountain out of a molehill, I would say. I follow politics pretty closely (obviously, I post here) and I would consider myself most closely aligned with the NDP, but I don't see Goldring's actions as a reflection of his party. If the CPC tried to cover it up or something along those lines, it would look bad for them. That's not the case though.

[WWWTT]

Same with Goldrings charge, refusing to blow. They don't address impairment, they just address the yes or no question.

'Are you a peace officer?'

'Yes'

'Did you legally require Goldring to provide a breath sample'

'Yes'

'Did he comply'?

'No'

I do not believe you are privy to the conversation between the arresting officer and Goldring.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

You're making a mountain out of a molehill, I would say. I follow politics pretty closely (obviously, I post here) and I would consider myself most closely aligned with the NDP, but I don't see Goldring's actions as a reflection of his party. If the CPC tried to cover it up or something along those lines, it would look bad for them. That's not the case though.

Really!?!?

Let me ask you something then.

You do not feel that the actions and decissions that an MP make at any time whatsoever may reflect on the political party you belong to?!?!

Really!?!?

Then how do you judge people and the political parties then if you NEVER take into account the actions and decissions of its members?

I expected better from you!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

'Are you a peace officer?'

'Yes'

'Did you legally require Goldring to provide a breath sample'

'Yes'

'Did he comply'?

'No'

Nor are you privy to any conversation between the crown and the arresting officer aswell between the ruling judge and the crown/arresting officer.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Really!?!?

Let me ask you something then.

You do not feel that the actions and decissions that an MP make at any time whatsoever may reflect on the political party you belong to?!?!

Really!?!?

Then how do you judge people and the political parties then if you NEVER take into account the actions and decissions of its members?

I expected better from you!

WWWTT

You're using a strawman and an ecological fallacy here.

I din't say that the actions and decisions of MPs never reflect on the party. I'm saying that the actions of this MP, particularly leaving a Christmas party and refusing a breathalyzer after a few drinks, does not reflect poorly on the party itself. You're being pretty irraitonal about the whole thing, I would say.

[cybercoma]

The only debate is in your cranium.

It is easy to see why, you do not understand the difference between impairment and the other charges.

The Corwn dioes not have to prove impairment in either 'driving over .08' or for 'refusing to provide a breathlyzer' sample.

In the first case, having a over .08 charge takes away all possible defences like 'I was over .08 but I am an experienced drinker and Completely in control and therefore not a hazard'. The law does not care about yoyur level of competence or imnpairment, just that chemically you have tested over .08. It does not matter if you could do complex calculus in yoru head or are face down in the ditch, impaired or not impaired- if you are over .08you are guilty.

Same with Goldrings charge, refusing to blow. They don't address impairment, they just address the yes or no question.

'Are you a peace officer?'

'Yes'

'Did you legally require Goldring to provide a breath sample'

'Yes'

'Did he comply'?

'No'

Result: guilty, and the penalties are the same as if he had blown over .08. NObody knows or cares if he was impaired, that is a different charge used under different cicumstances.

And the result of that penalty will be the same for the Tories: nothing.

If only it were that simple.

The law has lots of room for interpretation. Such as when it is and isn't legal for the cop to give a breathalyzer. It uses wording such as, "Where a peace officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds" and "Where a peace officer reasonably suspects." It's up to the courts to determine if the officer's suspicions were reasonable and if he can show that it was probable that Goldring was drunk before requiring the breathalyzer. The cop is not allowed to just give a random breathalyzer to someone on a hunch.

The refusal law itself also contains what I would call interpretive language, i.e., "Every one commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply..."

So, it is possible to refuse a breathalyzer, but the courts must determine what is considered "reasonable" in that situation.

I'm not defending Goldring. I don't know the particulars of the case. However, it's not as simple as the cop saying, "I told him he had to blow and he wouldn't."

[punked]

If only it were that simple.

The law has lots of room for interpretation. Such as when it is and isn't legal for the cop to give a breathalyzer. It uses wording such as, "Where a peace officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds" and "Where a peace officer reasonably suspects." It's up to the courts to determine if the officer's suspicions were reasonable and if he can show that it was probable that Goldring was drunk before requiring the breathalyzer. The cop is not allowed to just give a random breathalyzer to someone on a hunch.

The refusal law itself also contains what I would call interpretive language, i.e., "Every one commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply..."

So, it is possible to refuse a breathalyzer, but the courts must determine what is considered "reasonable" in that situation.

I'm not defending Goldring. I don't know the particulars of the case. However, it's not as simple as the cop saying, "I told him he had to blow and he wouldn't."

I would just like to point out it was Goldring who wanted to create a law where an officer could give anyone a Breathalyzer for no reason what so ever. You reap what you sow.

[cybercoma]

I would just like to point out it was Goldring who wanted to create a law where an officer could give anyone a Breathalyzer for no reason what so ever. You reap what you sow.

I thought he opposed it. Either way it could be spun in a way to mock him, which I also don't really think is fair to the guy.

[punked]

I thought he opposed it. Either way it could be spun in a way to mock him, which I also don't really think is fair to the guy.

Oh I misread. That changes the situation quite a bit.

[cybercoma]

Oh I misread. That changes the situation quite a bit.

Yeah. He shot it down:

In 2009, he objected to a proposal by the advocacy group Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which called for more roadside breath testing even when police did not believe a motorist had been drinking

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111205/goldring-impaired-driving-charge-111205/#ixzz1fmqsfZyu

It seems a bit dishonest to spin it in this way. "Oh he's a big drunk bastard, no wonder he turned down that bill."

It's really unfair. I find random breathalyzers to be highly intrusive, although I'm not opposed to roadside stops and breathalyzers with reasonable and probable suspicions.

[cybercoma]

Let me just say, for the record, that if he was indeed drinking and driving, then I absolutely condemn him for his actions.

What I take exception to in this thread is characterizing this as something that reflects poorly on the CPC. It really has nothing to do with the party and he withdrew himself from caucus immediately.

[fellowtraveller]

I'm not defending Goldring. I don't know the particulars of the case. However, it's not as simple as the cop saying, "I told him he had to blow and he wouldn't."

Pretty close. Very few refusal to blow cases come to trial as comapred to driving over .08 cases.

I have explained why. You do not have to prove impairment or even that they have had a single drink. You do not have to testify as to the test readings, second readings, time elapsed, officers test equipment qualifications. maintenance of equipment, calibration schedules or any of that.

I can tell you the cirscumstances, they were in todays paper in Edmonton and the incident took place about 2 kms from where I am right now. The cops had been running a major Checkstop for drunk drivers on a major street, which is common at this time of year. The individual cars were released with instructions to continue checking for alcohol/driving offences. Goldring was stopped nearby at 12:30 AM and with failing to prpovide a breath sample. He had earlier been at a major political fucntion, where ironically he got into an argument with a provincial cabinet minsiter over legislation in the works in AB to toughen drunkl driving laws.

The onus is on the Crown to demonstarte that he refused to blow. It is really unlikely that this one will either.

It's up to the courts to determine if the officer's suspicions were reasonable and if he can show that it was probable that Goldring was drunk

wrong. Drunkenness or impairment are not required as pretexts to ask somebody to blow.

The refusal law itself also contains what I would call interpretive language, i.e., "Every one commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply..."

You must be an attorney and billing at $350/hour. The only excuses are things like 'I could not blow because I was in the middle of cardiac arrest' or 'the officer held his pistol to my head and forced me to blow'. This silliness has all been tried and discarded many many years ago.

This is what will be stated in court.

" The car changed lanes without signalling. I pulled it over. When he rolled down the window, I smelled alcohol in the vehicle. He refused to blow. I charged him. Here we are'

It does not matter if he was stone cold sober and had not had a drink since 1971, he isn't charged with anything except refusing to blow.

Very hard charge to dispute.

Nor are you privy to any conversation between the crown and the arresting officer aswell between the ruling judge and the crown/arresting officer.

Of course I am privy, anybody can attend a session of court and observe. And that is about what wuill be said in court, since that is about all that is required to convict in these cases. I'm a cop, I stopped him and he refused to blow. Edited December 6, 2011 by fellowtraveller

[cybercoma]

wrong. Drunkenness or impairment are not required as pretexts to ask somebody to blow.

You must be an attorney and billing at $350/hour. The only excuses are things like 'I could not blow because I was in the middle of cardiac arrest' or 'the officer held his pistol to my head and forced me to blow'. This silliness has all been tried and discarded many many years ago.

I just copied the wording of the legislation directly. I made no claims whatsoever to what is or is not reasonable in either the case of the refusal or the when it comes to the officers' suspicions.

Drunkenness or impairment are pretexts to ask someone to blow because the cop, according to the exact wording of the legislation, needs to have grounds to believe he had been drinking before he asks him to blow. You can claim that they don't need a pretext all you want, but the way the law is written says otherwise.

edit to add: If they could pull you over and administer a breath sample at random, there would have been no need for the 2009 MADD legislation that he shot down.

Edited December 6, 2011 by cybercoma

[WWWTT]

You're using a strawman and an ecological fallacy here.

I din't say that the actions and decisions of MPs never reflect on the party. I'm saying that the actions of this MP, particularly leaving a Christmas party and refusing a breathalyzer after a few drinks, does not reflect poorly on the party itself. You're being pretty irraitonal about the whole thing, I would say.

Did you not say that you do not see Goldrings actions as a reflection of his party?

I am commenting on what you had earlier said,are you now changing what you had said earlier?

Was Goldring not a member of the conservative party?In fact he was one of the longest serving members of the party!And his actions will reflect on the party!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Did you not say that you do not see Goldrings actions as a reflection of his party?

yes.

I am commenting on what you had earlier said,are you now changing what you had said earlier?

No. That's what I said.

Was Goldring not a member of the conservative party?

Yes.

In fact he was one of the longest serving members of the party! And his actions will reflect on the party!

No.

[WWWTT]

Let me just say, for the record, that if he was indeed drinking and driving, then I absolutely condemn him for his actions.

What I take exception to in this thread is characterizing this as something that reflects poorly on the CPC. It really has nothing to do with the party and he withdrew himself from caucus immediately.

Then according to your line of thinking-no party bears any responsibility for the actions of any of its members.

And what if those actions are good things and not negative?

Or are you saying that any negative action or decission made by an MP can be disclaimed as having no signifigant impact on the party that chose this member to represent their party for such riding?

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Then according to your line of thinking-no party bears any responsibility for the actions of any of its members.

No. You're trying to say that "no party bears any responsibility for any of the actions of its members. That's not what I'm saying and it's not what I believe.

And what if those actions are good things and not negative?

Like leaving a big tip at the bar? Doesn't matter. If he's not doing it on "company time" then it's not a reflection of his "employer".

Or are you saying that any negative action or decission made by an MP can be disclaimed as having no signifigant impact on the party that chose this member to represent their party for such riding?

There's the any I was looking for.

[WWWTT]

Of course I am privy, anybody can attend a session of court and observe. And that is about what wuill be said in court, since that is about all that is required to convict in these cases. I'm a cop, I stopped him and he refused to blow.

Oh and when/where was this trail that you attended?

Are you actually quoting what was said by the crown/judge/arresting officer?And what about Goldring what did he say?What was the plea he entered?What about his lawyer?Who is his lawyer?If this trial had already occured and you were there then you should be able to remember what he said.No?

WWWTT

[Shwa]

Yes there absolutely is evidence he was impared!He refused to provide a breath sample that would have clearly indicated if he was NOT drinking!Let me remind you that being convicted of refusing to blow is a criminal offence in Canada!

If there was evidence he was impaired, why wasn't his car license suspended for 24 hours? I haven't read anything where he was convicted of DUI. Just that he refused to blow.

Why did he refuse?Because he felt it was unconstitutional or some other symbolic principal reason?Did he not realize the consequences of not blowing?

If he wants to challenge a law by refusing to participate in it, that is his right. You should be thankful for that.

This guy showed poor judgment!Plain and simple.And he was a sitting member of the conservative caucus when this happened.This is a fact!

If it turns out he refused to blow because he wished to challenge the grounds upon which the request was made then he has my support.

And somehow you believe the conservatives can continuely act with complete disregard of our laws and proper conduct and walk away squeeky clean!I think not buddy!

There is no plurality here, this is a single person. Not like the Prime Minister or something.

In fact I believe you are dead wrong!

You are free to believe as you wish.

Thank God nobody was injured!

Thank God he wasn't DUI.

Oh and by the way this guy is getting special treatment,if this happened to you or I we would spend the night in jail!

Maybe, maybe not.

[cybercoma]

Let me just add this, WWWTT. If Goldring had said, "Do you know who I am!? I'm a MFing MP!" Then he used his political clout to try and get the charges thrown out, as the CPC covers his ass.... that would reflect poorly on the CPC, imo. Nonetheless, this reflects poorly on Goldring himself and as it should be, he has been kicked out of caucus (or left on his own, I don't know).