Peter Goldring

[cybercoma]

Shwa, under the criminal code you can't be charged with another offense related to DUI if you're charged with refusing to blow.

[WWWTT]

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.

I do not know?

But I do know many people will be asking that same question.Like say MADD and possibly some opposition MPs.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Thank God he wasn't DUI.

Refusing to blow=blowing over or DUI

Are you saying the charges have bein dismissed?

Wow that was a fast trial,do you have a link to support your claim or are you making this up!

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Someone drove Goldring home, [Edmonton police spokesman Chad ] Orydzuk said, since the charge brings an immediate 24-hour licence suspension... link

[WWWTT]

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.

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".

Ok then explain how is it that a conservative mp who is charged with failing to blow is no longer a conservative or how their actions do not reflect on their party that chose them to represent them?

Is there a switch that MPs flip to "off" when they are not sitting in the house.

And where was it that Goldring was driving home from?Was he not attending some kind of political related function?

Is he somehow a complete innocent unpolitical figure on his down time?

WWWTT

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

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).

Oh man that would have bein freekin juicy!!

If that happened then this thread would be already 50+ pages long!!

Who knows maybe something like this will still surface.

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.

Was Goldring not a member of the conservative party in 2009 when he attempted to shoot down legislation to make it easier for police to administer road side breathalizer test?

Did he not run again in 2011 as a conservative MP and was re-elected after the party clearly knew where this guy stood?

But now somehow after he is charged with refusing to blow you "claim" that his actions do not reflect on the conservative party?

Are you for real man?

WWWTT

[blueblood]

Ok then explain how is it that a conservative mp who is charged with failing to blow is no longer a conservative or how their actions do not reflect on their party that chose them to represent them?

Is there a switch that MPs flip to "off" when they are not sitting in the house.

And where was it that Goldring was driving home from?Was he not attending some kind of political related function?

Is he somehow a complete innocent unpolitical figure on his down time?

WWWTT

WWWTT

The mp flicked the "conservative switch" off because he saw the writing on the wall. He fell on his sword for committing a stupid mistake like that and learned from the Jaffer-Guergis affair. I'm sure gold ring doesn't want to make things worse by kicking and screaming like gruesome twosomes did. He did the smart thing and got the heck out of dodge. The media has nothing else to go on, and the Tories got rid of some cancer, a textbook example of managing a possible disaster.

[WWWTT]

The mp flicked the "conservative switch" off because he saw the writing on the wall. He fell on his sword for committing a stupid mistake like that and learned from the Jaffer-Guergis affair. I'm sure gold ring doesn't want to make things worse by kicking and screaming like gruesome twosomes did. He did the smart thing and got the heck out of dodge. The media has nothing else to go on, and the Tories got rid of some cancer, a textbook example of managing a possible disaster.

Wrong again blueblood.

In 2009-Two years before the last election Goldring made his position clear!Where was Harper then?Where were the conservative party protecting the rights of victims?But now Harper comes out "after" one of his mp is charged to say we are strongly against impaired driving?!?!?

And somehow the conservatives are not responsible?

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

Aye, and there's the rub innit?

(not to be confused with politicians being caught in "massage parlors")

Hey for the record, when Mr Layton’s massage came to light, if you went back and checked the thread, I thought it was a disgusting smear, and even cautioned a few of the idiots here on the ins and outs of libel and slander……I’d have never voted for Mr Layton’s party and disagreed on his policies, and aside from his stance and usage of the “troops” on Afghanistan, I respected (Not worshipped) the man…….

[Shwa]

Shwa, under the criminal code you can't be charged with another offense related to DUI if you're charged with refusing to blow.

I did not know that!

[Shwa]

Someone drove Goldring home, [Edmonton police spokesman Chad ] Orydzuk said, since the charge brings an immediate 24-hour licence suspension... link

Very interesting. The story I read in the Edmonton Sun referenced in my post here has a quote from the story saying that he wasn't given a 24 hr suspension. Alas, the story now appears to have had edits. Mind you, it was from yesterday.

[Shwa]

Hey for the record, when Mr Laytons massage came to light, if you went back and checked the thread, I thought it was a disgusting smear, and even cautioned a few of the idiots here on the ins and outs of libel and slander……Id have never voted for Mr Laytons party and disagreed on his policies, and aside from his stance and usage of the troops on Afghanistan, I respected (Not worshipped) the man…….

I meant that in the lightest sense possible, not directed to you or anything. It could be a massage, dancers, cocaine hooker parties, etc. Fact is, politicians seem to get in their fair share as a group, not as an ideology.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Shwa

[Guest Derek L]

I meant that in the lightest sense possible, not directed to you or anything. It could be a massage, dancers, cocaine hooker parties, etc. Fact is, politicians seem to get in their fair share as a group, not as an ideology.

And I didn’t mean to sound defensive…….I agree, politicians of all stripes, f**k-up…..they are after all people.......Layton, Jaffer and Goldring are hardly Mötley Crüe redux

[cybercoma]

Was Goldring not a member of the conservative party in 2009 when he attempted to shoot down legislation to make it easier for police to administer road side breathalizer test?

That's such a BS non sequiter. I'm ashamed of the media for bringing it up and I'm disappointed that you would repeat it without giving it a second thought.

I'm not surprised he shot it down because it was a private members' bill that was pushed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. That group does many wonderful things; however, I think the random roadside checks are intrusive enough, but a valuable resource in preventing and catching drunk-driving. What that 2009 bill wanted to do was give the police the right to require you to blow regardless of whether or not they had a reasonable and probable grounds to believe you had been drinking. Refusing a breathalyzer is a criminal offense and they wanted to have a bill passed that would allow the cops to force you, by threat of criminal conviction, to give a breath sample without having any reason for giving it. They wanted random breathalyzers on people that don't even remotely seem to be impaired. I find this to be incredibly intrusive and I don't think the difference between the already existing legislation and that one would make it worth the additional intrusion.

[Tilter]

Actually, if we remember correctly a former premier of BC was convicted of DUI while in Office. The lucky break he got was that he did it in Hawaii, or maybe the unlucky break, maybe if it happened in BC he never would have been charged because of who he was.

BC is called LaLa land for a very good reason--- nowhere else do you find the variety of weird political back & forth lawlessness embracing all parties --- An attorney general disbarred for misappropriating a customer`s money, a political party caught stealing funds from a CHARITY :blink: a DWI premier, a premier unseated because of allegedly using his position to sweeten a real estate deal and on & on. :blink:

[fellowtraveller]

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.

Wrong, and please stop making up shit that you somehow think I said.

An observation by a peace officer of apparent drunkeness or impairment while operating a motor vehicle are just one prerequisite to a specific action by the officer, which is to demand a breath sample.

But they are not the only ones and they are not the usual ones.

Officers cannot judge impairment by a 15 second conversation through a car window and their case would be thrown out if they tried that.

Officers DO NOT NEED TO PROVE IMPAIRMENT when laying a charge of failing to blow or blowing over .08.

What the courts have accepted for a quarter century or more is the officers testimony that they smelled alcohol from within the vehicle.

That is it, that is all that is required to demand a breath sample.

You as a driver are not legally required to provide one.

If you do fail to provide one, you will be charged with a separate but equally serious crime, which is what has happened.

There is NO NEED to prove impairment or that Goldring has a drink at any time. Maybe somebody else in his car had been drinking. Maybe his cologne smells like bourbon. Doesn't matter.

Edited December 7, 2011 by fellowtraveller

[cybercoma]

I never said they have to prove impairment before they require a breath sample. I said they need to "reasonably" believe tha t the person might be impaired. They can't just randomly issue breathalyzers to people without some compelling reason. I quoted directly from the statute, so if you're disagreeing with the words of the statute, then you're the one that's wrong.

Edited December 7, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

And the only reason I brought that up is that you said the only thing the court has to do is ask the cop if he required a breath sample. If he says yes and Goldring refused, that's it. Open and shut case. It's not open and shut. The cop has to prove that he had reason to suspect Goldring was impaired before he required the breathalyzer. Otherwise, as I said, cops all over could just issue random breathalyzer tests to people and the 2009 MADD Bill would have been redundant. Obviously they can't just require a breath test for no reason.

[WWWTT]

And the only reason I brought that up is that you said the only thing the court has to do is ask the cop if he required a breath sample. If he says yes and Goldring refused, that's it. Open and shut case. It's not open and shut. The cop has to prove that he had reason to suspect Goldring was impaired before he required the breathalyzer. Otherwise, as I said, cops all over could just issue random breathalyzer tests to people and the 2009 MADD Bill would have been redundant. Obviously they can't just require a breath test for no reason.

Keep in mind that just recently in Alberta something like 4 students died at the hand of an alleged impaired driver in one single accident.

This puts a tremendous push on the justice system to crack down.

You could be right that Goldring may plead not guilty and his lawyer will argue that the arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to pull him over to ask the judge to throw out the case.

But all the cop has to say that he saw him swerve and he smelled alcohol on his breath.

Keep in mind that this is not a case where his vehicle was searched revealing a controlled substance!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

I agree with all of that for sure. I don't think he's going to "get away" with it. It's just not entirely accurate to say that someone who's charged with refusing to blow is guilty and has to prove their innocence.

[WWWTT]

I agree with all of that for sure. I don't think he's going to "get away" with it. It's just not entirely accurate to say that someone who's charged with refusing to blow is guilty and has to prove their innocence.

Yes and this is where driving a vehicle is not the same as being in the privacy of your own home.

When you drive a vehicle you do so with the permision of the provincial government through a drivers liscence.

Holding a drivers liscence is a privalege and not a right.

In other words as far as drivers liscences go you are automatically guilty(when charged)(in cases of high speed and impairment drinking alcohol) and must prove otherwise.This is why the police are able to suspend your liscence automatically before a trial or hearing.

You may be confusing this case with possibly some others were the police have pulled people over,searched their vehicle,found a controlled substance and then charged the individual with possession and/or trafficing etc etc.Many of these cases are natoriously thrown out because 9 out of ten times the cop has no way of telling from the drivers ability to control their vehicle is an indication they are in possession of a controlled substance.Or being in possession of a controlled substance does not affect your ability to drive.

WWWTT