Drunk drivers beware – 7 days in jail before your bail hearing

[mattrudlles]

Please advise what discretion you are referring to then. You are advocating for a police office or a traffic officer having the ability to apply the law how and where they see fit. That's not their job.

Police officers do have discretion to assess a situation. Think of searching a person on reasonable suspicion without a warrant. The legislation can simply make provision for this.

 

[ProfA]

Police officers do have discretion to assess a situation. Think of searching a person on reasonable suspicion without a warrant. The legislation can simply make provision for this.

Until a "technically drunk driver" who "who has been driving perfectly fine" kills your wife and kids.

 

[mattrudlles]

Until a "technically drunk driver" who "who has been driving perfectly fine" kills your wife and kids.

How exactly would he kill your wife and kids?

 

[ProfA]

How exactly would he kill your wife and kids?

By being technically drunk and not doing anything wrong.

 

[quovadis]

No one wants drunk drivers on the road, but we also don't want to incarcerate people unnecessarily. We have two issues here, and technically drunk drivers are productive members of society who do not necessarily have accidents. Rather we should be concerned about those people who have had to many drinks. Yes it isn't black and white then, but so what? The law shouldn't always be black and white either.

If you pull over car A with a technically drunk person who has been driving perfectly fine, complied with every direction given to him/her, then tell them step out of the car and call a friend/family member to pick up the car, and charge them with DUI but don't arrest them. They will then be summoned to court for their hearing.

If you pull over car B with a really drunk driver who is clearly drunk, with the breatheliser only confirming what is known, then we are talking about a different issue - arrest them.

The law by its very definition is black and white. Because someone is "productive" who "do not necessarily have accidents" is irrelevant. Just because you're a drunk over the limit or a priest over the limit makes no difference except in mitigation or argument of prosecution and/or sentencing.

1) Law enforcement officers enforce the law - they should not interpret it.
2) The law states what is a crime and how a person caught committing such a crime should be dealt with as a matter of procedure.
3) Acting with discretion of the aforementioned law is not their mandate or in the realm of their responsibility.

Police officers do have discretion to assess a situation. Think of searching a person on reasonable suspicion without a warrant. The legislation can simply make provision for this.

No, they don't have discretion to enforce or not enforce the law. They may use their discretion in other ways but not the law and in exercising their duties. Reasonable suspicion has nothing to do with discretionary powers when someone is in contravention of the law.

 

[mattrudlles]

By being technically drunk and not doing anything wrong.

You haven't answere the question: how? I had a drink last night and no one's wife or kids died from it.

I'll answer the question for you: they wouldn't drive away from the scene, but wouldn't be arrested either.

 

[mattrudlles]

The law by its very definition is black and white. Because someone is "productive" who "do not necessarily have accidents" is irrelevant. Just because you're a drunk over the limit or a priest over the limit makes no difference except in mitigation or argument of prosecution and/or sentencing.

1) Law enforcement officers enforce the law - they should not interpret it.
2) The law states what is a crime and how a person caught committing such a crime should be dealt with as a matter of procedure.
3) Acting with discretion of the aforementioned law is not their mandate or in the realm of their responsibility.



No, they don't have discretion to enforce or not enforce the law. They may use their discretion in other ways but not the law and in exercising their duties. Reasonable suspicion has nothing to do with discretionary powers when someone is in contravention of the law.

They do have discretion for reasonable suspicion, ergo, it is not a far stretch for the imagination that they can have it in respect of these DUI issues discussed above if properly legislated for.

The law is not black and white entirely. Have you ever had a dispute on a legal issue?

 

[quovadis]

The law is not black and white entirely. Have you ever had a dispute on a legal issue?

Yes and that's why you argue the law IN COURT creating legal precedent and not at the side of the road between yourself and a police officer whose job it is to enforce the law as it STANDS.

 

[mattrudlles]

Yes and that's why you argue the law IN COURT creating legal precedent and not at the side of the road between yourself and a police officer whose job it is to enforce the law as it STANDS.

There is no argument with the officer - it his/her call.

Do you think you can argue with an officer about him searching your person?

 

[quovadis]

There is no argument with the officer - it his/her call.

I never said there was an argument with the officer and no it's not their call. They are legally obliged to act in terms of the criminal procedures act. In not doing so they are in dereliction of their duty. A person who's determined to be in excess of the legal limit is an objective rather than a subjective finding. The objectivity of that reading should only be argued by lawyers/prosecutors etc.

 

[quovadis]

Do you think you can argue with an officer about him searching your person?

Right to search has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[ProfA]

You haven't answere the question: how? I had a drink last night and no one's wife or kids died from it.

I'll answer the question for you: they wouldn't drive away from the scene, but wouldn't be arrested either.

So because you got lucky while driving drunk according to the law, everybody gets a free pass?
The debate level has reached parliament standards.

 

[bwana]

People have already begun their seasonal drive like fools session, I hate the holiday's, and premature Christmas decorations.

As much as I hate being on the roads this time of year, and that hatred will only increase when the hill people come down for the summer, my insurance will send someone to drive me home in my vehicle. I realise that doesn't protect me from them, but it protects them from me.

 

[Moto Guzzi]

Drunk drivers beware – 7 days in jail before your bail hearing

The Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) wants drunk drivers to spend at least 7 days in jail before they can be considered for bail.

The RTMC was established for co-operative and coordinated strategic planning, regulation, facilitation and law enforcement in respect of road traffic matters.

Interesting, you can buy liquer but not allowed to drink and drive, you can buy fast car, but not allowed to speed, whats going on here really-?

 

[quovadis]

So because you got lucky while driving drunk according to the law, everybody gets a free pass?

No, he's arguing that should he be pulled over and be found to be over the limit (but doesn't seem to be and is a productive member of society and is nice and cooperating with all instruction) the officer should decide, at their own discretion, on how to proceed.

 

[mattrudlles]

So because you got lucky while driving drunk according to the law, everybody gets a free pass?
The debate level has reached parliament standards.

You realise we are talking about what the law ought to be right? Anyway.

 

[mattrudlles]

Right to search has nothing to do with this topic.

Actually it does and if you have failed to see that a police officer has discretion due to the law, and he can be given further discretion, then I cannot further explain it.

 

[ProfA]

Actually it does and if you have failed to see that a police officer has discretion due to the law, and he can be given further discretion, then I cannot further explain it.

You realise we are talking about drunk driving right? Anyway.

 

[quovadis]

Actually it does and if you have failed to see that a police officer has discretion due to the law, and he can be given further discretion, then I cannot further explain it.

The office has discretion on whether to pull you over. He doesn't have discretion on whether or not to arrest you should you be objectively and legally over the limit.

 

[mattrudlles]

You realise we are talking about drunk driving right? Anyway.

You're also talking about what the law ought to be. This is a discussion about changes to the DUI laws.