in Ontario refuse either a roadside OR a breathalyzer at the station OR blowing over 80 automatically results in 90 days suspension which is practically impossible to appeal
Man Held for Threatening to Kill Someone, Released on Bail & Follows Through
- Thread starter trtinajax
- Start date
Yeah ... I'm okay with that.in Ontario refuse either a roadside OR a breathalyzer at the station OR blowing over 80 automatically results in 90 days suspension which is practically impossible to appeal
yeah, the Crown would not put him/herself in the shoes of say a recent immigrant who simply does not have sureties available to him/her. A JP might easily grant a bail with a surety to an accused who has no sureties, which of course is tantamount to a detention order.Interesting. I don't practice criminal law, so bail hearings are just theory for me. I have never attended one and several of my friends are Crowns (so their perspective is different from that of accused or defence counsel).
The system is really fucked the other way, but due to cases like the one posted the public does not get to see the real picture.
nope... a driver has no right to refuse a roadside test... refusal is as bad (or worse) than blowing over 0.08...I agree in theory. In practice, the suspension is intended for drivers who refuse a breathalyzer test. As I recall, a driver has a right to refuse a roadside breathalyzer test. If the driver refuses and is later ordered to take the test back at the police station, enough time may have passed that the driver sobers up enough to fall within the legal limit. Of course, the automatic suspension does violate the presumption of innocence.
Thinking about it now, I am inclined to agree with the automatic suspension either on the grounds that driving is a privilege or, if driving is a right, it is subject to greater limits for the common good than certain other rights (like the rights to life or freedom).
and i agree with you, the suspension does violate the presumption of innocence... but lobby groups (such as MADD) have done a great job with media to convince people that the suspension is in fact for the protection of the greater good...
question: if you are threatening someone else's freedom, do you still have a right to freedom? cuz if the courts figured that one out and realized that you don't... this situation would not have happened.
ALLEGEDLY threatening...come on people let's not go crazy herequestion: if you are threatening someone else's freedom, do you still have a right to freedom? cuz if the courts figured that one out and realized that you don't... this situation would not have happened.
just so you know in England the police would not start a domestic case unless there is injuries..in Canada they can arrest you and hold overnight for bail on the word of a woman who may have good reasons to fuck you up (custody dispute etc) and you on top of that want it to be WITHOUT BAIL? are you insane? seriously
it seems like people want to have their cake and eat it to...ALLEGEDLY threatening...come on people let's not go crazy here
just so you know in England the police would not start a domestic case unless there is injuries..in Canada they canarrest you and hold overnight for bail on the word of a woman who may have good reasons to fuck you up (custody dispute etc) and you on top of that want it to be WITHOUT BAIL? are you insane? seriously
someone can lose their license for 90 days automatically with no chance of appeal based on the 'testimony' of a piece of technology...
but, if someone allegedly threatens to kill someone they can be back out on the streets in the morning if they can post bail??
you realize that you are comparing driver's licence to freedom, right?it seems like people want to have their cake and eat it to...
someone can lose their license for 90 days automatically with no chance of appeal based on the 'testimony' of a piece of technology...
but, if someone allegedly threatens to kill someone they can be back out on the streets in the morning if they can post bail??
ya ya ya... driving is a privilege not a right... is that what you were going to say next?you realize that you are comparing driver's licence to freedom, right?
let me ask you, if you have a serious issue with your SO, division of property, custody, the whole shebang, and she is advised by friends that it would be very helpful to call the cops during your next screaming match and say that you threatened her, and she does just that, would you be prepared to spend 3 months in jail pending your trial if you can plead guilty and get out of jail in 2 days?ya ya ya... driving is a privilege not a right... is that what you were going to say next?
i get your point but dont think that was the case hereALLEGEDLY threatening...come on people let's not go crazy here
just so you know in England the police would not start a domestic case unless there is injuries..in Canada they can arrest you and hold overnight for bail on the word of a woman who may have good reasons to fuck you up (custody dispute etc) and you on top of that want it to be WITHOUT BAIL? are you insane? seriously
#1 i would not plead guilty...let me ask you, if you have a serious issue with your SO, division of property, custody, the whole shebang, and she is advised by friends that it would be very helpful to call the cops during your next screaming match and say that you threatened her, and she does just that, would you be prepared to spend 3 months in jail pending your trial if you can plead guilty and get out of jail in 2 days?
#2 i'm not sure what point you are trying to make...
let me ask you... if you were driving home one day and got pulled over by police and they decided to breathalyze you... and due to a defect in the sensor you blew over 0.08 and they immediately suspended your licence for 90 days... and you happen to be a fedex driver, and you lose your job since you no longer have a valid license and you can no longer provide for yourself or your family... would you be ok with that?
the case here is about the guy who is fucked in the head, not about the bail systemi get your point but dont think that was the case here
I'm not saying that 90 days ADLS is OK, in fact I strongly disagree with it, but denying bail without just cause is even crazier#1 i would not plead guilty...
#2 i'm not sure what point you are trying to make...
let me ask you... if you were driving home one day and got pulled over by police and they decided to breathalyze you... and due to a defect in the sensor you blew over 0.08 and they immediately suspended your licence for 90 days... and you happen to be a fedex driver, and you lose your job since you no longer have a valid license and you can no longer provide for yourself or your family... would you be ok with that?
the point I'm trying to make is very simple - if there were no bails for a threat (which coincidentally doesn't even have hard evidence but rather he said/she said) you would be an idiot to wait 3 months for your trial and you most likely WOULD plead guilty if offered a lenient sentence.
good point...I'm not saying that 90 days ADLS is OK, in fact I strongly disagree with it, but denying bail without just cause is even crazier
i think i'm just irritated that this guy actually went through with it... and the bail process cannot really be blamed... unless he had a record, which i don't know so i can't comment
Absolutely. "Freedom" is a theoretical concept enshrined as a right. When rights conflict, which happens all the time, one or both rights are limited.... question: if you are threatening someone else's freedom, do you still have a right to freedom? cuz if the courts figured that one out and realized that you don't... this situation would not have happened.
amen to thatgood point...
i think i'm just irritated that this guy actually went through with it... and the bail process cannot really be blamed... unless he had a record, which i don't know so i can't comment
let's also not forget that the sentence for first offence with no injuries or minimal injuries would not be a jail sentence, so if there were no bails for people like that, they would simply plead guilty and get out of jail mad as hell while being restrained by nothing except reporting to probation.
Now THAT would be a system that arguably leads to repeat offences.
Another way to look at bail system is to compare it with the USA as they have a very different one in place there. Both seem to work though, but neither can stop a crazy killer.
its about the knife, no knife no stabbing. ban all knives, only chefs need knives.the case here is about the guy who is fucked in the head, not about the bail system
so we can't blame anybody except the guy who did it, but at the same time we did nothing to protect the woman's life.
the police only arrest the guy AFTER he killed her.
wouldnt logic dictate that maybe she should have been afforded the right to i dunno, protect herself?
the police only arrest the guy AFTER he killed her.
wouldnt logic dictate that maybe she should have been afforded the right to i dunno, protect herself?
I'm pretty sure self-defense is not allowed in Canada, and punishable by minimum 20 years in jailso we can't blame anybody except the guy who did it, but at the same time we did nothing to protect the woman's life.
the police only arrest the guy AFTER he killed her.
wouldnt logic dictate that maybe she should have been afforded the right to i dunno, protect herself?
unless you use an automatic weapon in which case it's fineI'm pretty sure self-defense is not allowed in Canada, and punishable by minimum 20 years in jail
