Greencoachdog Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I hate that safety first crap... It's just getting stupid. If I don't want want to wear a bicycle helmet that should be my perogative. If I want to have a beer in my canoe that's my business. If I'm drunk and endangering others or would be rescuers well then that's a different story. I'm just getting sick of meddlesome laws that are designed to protect us from ourselves. I mean; why not take it a step further? No swimming after drinking. How about no alcohol within 50 metres of the waters edge? Think how safe we'd all be!! Wouldn't it be great to be so safe?! Where does it end? It's all just so idiotic. ... care for another beer Bubba? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 (edited) sorry the true wording is any motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel..... i'll have to double check the Crim. Code's definition of a vessel What are you "sorry" about. Like I said.. when they added DWI/DUI to "boating" they added it as a vessel. Not a motorized vessel, motorized boat... simply vessel and vessel covers everything right down to a hand tied log raft. Edited May 17, 2009 by irishfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightfisher Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Not all Police Officers carry Tazer's in Ontario, just so you know! And a tazer saves lives, cause if there was no tazers and a police officer had to protect himself he would shoot. I would rather be tazed than shot!! For the person complaining about the non-motorized fines....there are alot of people that drown in ontario from drinking and getting in canoes and stuff. They wouldn't make these laws if idiots would stop doing stupid things on the water drunk! Its like a stupid warning on a product, they wouldn't put it on there if someone didn't do it! Last year in Toronto tasers were used 367 times. I find it hard to believe the Police would of shot that many people in one year if they didn't have tasers. The RCMP used their tasers 1106 times in 2008. Again, hard to believe there would of been that many shooting by them. In the past police would use billy clubs or what ever to try and over power someone. Today with these tasers there's no need to, just zap the person instead. I f an officer feels his life is being threatened I can understand the use of guns or tasers, but the use of tasers are being used way to much. In Quebec this year the government band all tasers because a number of them were putting out way to much volts. Also in 2007 the United Nations reported that the use of tasers is a form of torture. Added to this, all the people that died as a result of being tasered, yet most of the deaths have been attributed to something else....would that mean all those people that died as a result of the taser, would of died at exactly the same time anyway..... I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckster Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 this sucks! You can't even get a good buzz on and go for a cruise anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cram Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Love that i can have my stuff impounded if i have 2 beers and go canoeing. Wow. Seriously, wow. Is there another country in the world where this is the case?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cram Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I think its time for a new provincial government. I mean, i am ALL for safety and believe that people who put others' lives at needless risk should be held responsible.....but some of the recent provincial laws are really crazy. Even if you're okay with the laws, teh way they are implemented (no judge or jury) is pretty ridiculous. I'm voting conservative next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdH20guy Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I think its time for a new provincial government. I mean, i am ALL for safety and believe that people who put others' lives at needless risk should be held responsible.....but some of the recent provincial laws are really crazy. Even if you're okay with the laws, teh way they are implemented (no judge or jury) is pretty ridiculous. I'm voting conservative next election. good for you;I`m sure that will change everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greencoachdog Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 this sucks! You can't even get a good buzz on and go for a cruise anymore Hell yeah!!! ... hey!.. why don't we just get good and buzzed and fire up that 7 1/4" circular saw!!!... or discharge firearms!!!... Oh hell yeah!!!... ... or maybe you'd like to get a good buzz on and hop the fence to the polar bear enclosure at the zoo... so you could pet them!... maybe you'd like to swim with the Great White sharks at Sea World with dead Mackerals tied to your ankles after one too many??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdH20guy Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Love that i can have my stuff impounded if i have 2 beers and go canoeing. Wow. Seriously, wow. Is there another country in the world where this is the case?? where did you read this authority .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cram Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 where did you read this authority .... Not sure if you read the thread??? That the 0.05 law applies to canoes etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cram Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 (edited) good for you;I`m sure that will change everything Of course it'll change nothing, but its also the only thing that can be done. People can get mad at police but they are only doing their jobs. Its the provincial gov't that is making the laws. Edited May 17, 2009 by cram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keram Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Not all Police Officers carry Tazer's in Ontario, just so you know! And a tazer saves lives, cause if there was no tazers and a police officer had to protect himself he would shoot. I would rather be tazed than shot!! For the person complaining about the non-motorized fines....there are alot of people that drown in ontario from drinking and getting in canoes and stuff. They wouldn't make these laws if idiots would stop doing stupid things on the water drunk! Its like a stupid warning on a product, they wouldn't put it on there if someone didn't do it! First of all, sorry to dissect your post, but I do not agree with anything you have said ( I hope I can have my own opinion ) Not all Police Officers carry Tazer's in Ontario, just so you know No I do not know and your statement means nothing unless you can provide some into ( who ?, why ?, when ? ) And a tazer saves lives, cause if there was no tazers and a police officer had to protect himself he would shoot. So you are saying that a tazer is for police to protect themselves ?. Did you hear about any case in which police officer died or was seriously injured because he/she did not use a taser? I've heard just opposite -"the criminal was dead" I would rather be tazed than shot!! This really makes me laugh.. How about not doing anything stupid enough so the police does not have to pick between a tazer and bullet? They wouldn't make these laws if idiots would stop doing stupid things on the water drunk! Its like a stupid warning on a product, they wouldn't put it on there if someone didn't do it! Well. lets make 99% of normal people follow the same rules like 1% stupid. Brilliant idea. just wait little bit longer and when you've farted, you will be charged not for or a smell ( too normal ) , but for excessive GHG emission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudd Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Love that i can have my stuff impounded if i have 2 beers and go canoeing. Wow. Seriously, wow. Is there another country in the world where this is the case?? Well it is alot stricter here in Australia and boy do they enforce it. In the past 2 weeks i can think of 2 days that i was not stopped for a breathalyzer. They set up all the time, i am in a small town so maybe the police have nothing to do but. On the water it is just as enforced. I dunno, i agree with the motorized boater but i think this is going to far. I always thought the reason for a law was to protect the public?? I should have the right to do what i want as long as it has no effect on anyone but myself. If i don't want to wear a helmut when cycling or paddle a canoe in the back country after having 3 beers then i should be able to. This is just the government trying to control the people once again. I really feel for the officers that have to enforce this stupidity, they are the ones that are going to take the brunt of the abuse for just doing there jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlied Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Last year in Toronto tasers were used 367 times. I find it hard to believe the Police would of shot that many people in one year if they didn't have tasers.The RCMP used their tasers 1106 times in 2008. Again, hard to believe there would of been that many shooting by them. In the past police would use billy clubs or what ever to try and over power someone. Today with these tasers there's no need to, just zap the person instead. I f an officer feels his life is being threatened I can understand the use of guns or tasers, but the use of tasers are being used way to much. In Quebec this year the government band all tasers because a number of them were putting out way to much volts. Also in 2007 the United Nations reported that the use of tasers is a form of torture. Added to this, all the people that died as a result of being tasered, yet most of the deaths have been attributed to something else....would that mean all those people that died as a result of the taser, would of died at exactly the same time anyway..... I don't think so. ok then tell me...would you rather have that many tazered or 10% of that shot and killed!!! Come on now. Police are trained to protect themselves first! I would do the same thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlied Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 First of all, sorry to dissect your post, but I do not agree with anything you have said ( I hope I can have my own opinion ) Not all Police Officers carry Tazer's in Ontario, just so you know No I do not know and your statement means nothing unless you can provide some into ( who ?, why ?, when ? ) And a tazer saves lives, cause if there was no tazers and a police officer had to protect himself he would shoot. So you are saying that a tazer is for police to protect themselves ?. Did you hear about any case in which police officer died or was seriously injured because he/she did not use a taser? I've heard just opposite -"the criminal was dead" I would rather be tazed than shot!! This really makes me laugh.. How about not doing anything stupid enough so the police does not have to pick between a tazer and bullet? They wouldn't make these laws if idiots would stop doing stupid things on the water drunk! Its like a stupid warning on a product, they wouldn't put it on there if someone didn't do it! Well. lets make 99% of normal people follow the same rules like 1% stupid. Brilliant idea. just wait little bit longer and when you've farted, you will be charged not for or a smell ( too normal ) , but for excessive GHG emission Well I actually do know about this cause I am learning it in school, by real police officers! People will always be against the police because it is human nature to go against authority. And yes I learned that in school also, which was a survey done by psychologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keram Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Well I actually do know about this cause I am learning it in school, by real police officers! People will always be against the police because it is human nature to go against authority. And yes I learned that in school also, which was a survey done by psychologists. Good for you, just be carefull not to be brainwashed too much And, maybe, please consider others point of view ( not mine ). http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home And those police psychologists http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishing n autograph Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 .....it's so easy for the majority to judge the few...... Do what we do and deal with what we deal with on a daily basis. Not gonna say more or less because those who don't understand are the first to cast stones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cram Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 when/why did this thread become about bashing the police? They didn't make the law(s). Just doing their job. Most of the police I have met seemed like good guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishing n autograph Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Threads like this always turn out that way....besides, guys wanna drink and boat or drink and drive because they want their fun and games, until something bad happens then it's tragic and then they have someone to sue....happens on a daily basis..... and as for tazers....what hurts more....a baton strike to the arm, breaking it or a 5 second arc of a tazer and after it's done you feel no pain....contrary to popular belief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cram Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Threads like this always turn out that way....besides, guys wanna drink and boat or drink and drive because they want their fun and games, until something bad happens then it's tragic and then they have someone to sue....happens on a daily basis..... and as for tazers....what hurts more....a baton strike to the arm, breaking it or a 5 second arc of a tazer and after it's done you feel no pain....contrary to popular belief I just don't like not being able to have a couple of beers in my canoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keram Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 and as for tazers....what hurts more....a baton strike to the arm, breaking it or a 5 second arc of a tazer and after it's done you feel no pain....contrary to popular belief or you are dead ....contrary to popular belief the problem is when "popular belief" is supported by science not by corporate interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cisco Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 (edited) I congratulate the police and MADD for almost elliminating drunk driving. I feel it's the PR and propoganda 'experts' who prepare media reports of things like roadside checks who are trying to make things look untruthful. Results have become very slim from TV reports I've heard. Extremely few DUI's are evident these days. So they 'up' the looks to impress readers by saying things like "Two temporary suspensions were issued and 14 unfit vehicles were pulled off the road" Joke is that the 'unfit' vehicles were largely vehicles just ticketed for small stuff like a turnlight not working. Police seem to have a harder time catching really bad folks so have upped their ability to nail folks for peanut offences so results seem impressive or at least tolerable enough for citizens not to complain about poor policing. I have also noticed that during a TV news item on a murder, often I hear that "The victim was known to police." Guess that's supposed to help the public towards believing the murder is not such a big deal.... Like in Montreal where police reps are claiming the ticket 'quota' was raised to 26 from 18, here the .05 is going to impress citizens by the press releases offering better statistics about roadside checks. Budgets would be cut if it was ever found how reduced impaired driving was, so by lowering the bar the police are able to justify keeping..... and probably INCREASING their budget. To change the bar so drivers are nailed more $$ and 3 day suspensions, etc. re the .05 thing, I would have hoped to see police data demonstrating that drivers with .05 have been responsible for whatever damage which justifies the change. Again, I congratulate the police and MADD on reducing impaired driving. As result I suggest budgets shrink to reflect reduced need for roadside checks..... but that is against the corporate goal of increasing budgets/power. Use the $$ to better go after drug trafficers or vehicle theft rings. Edited May 17, 2009 by cisco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlied Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 .....it's so easy for the majority to judge the few...... Do what we do and deal with what we deal with on a daily basis. Not gonna say more or less because those who don't understand are the first to cast stones. ....you said it all in a short breath! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keram Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 .....it's so easy for the majority to judge the few...... Do what we do and deal with what we deal with on a daily basis. Not gonna say more or less because those who don't understand are the first to cast stones. .....it's so easy for the majority to judge the few...... I'm glad you've said this. Did you notice that it works both ways- (public vs police or police vs public) ? Do what we do and deal with what we deal with on a daily basis. Not gonna say more or less because those who don't understand are the first to cast stones. After reading this sentence I think you are in wrong bussiness. You should be politician. But I will bite, just share it, so I and few others (unwashed) can understand and save the stone for somebody else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 From .08 to .05 - personally I do not have a problem. But at the same time , can we increase requirement (for any law enforcement person carrying a tazer), from current IQ 50 level to IQ 80 ? To bad we don't have an IQ requirement on this forum.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts