Tags for this video have been changed from 'DUI, Toronto' to 'DUI, Toronto, paramedic, geoff macbride' - edited by bareboards2

Is it true what the male reporter says about DUI? I wasn't aware that there was a way to measure active marijuana in the system and I also thought that was always a big problem with employer drug testing.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

I had to look up the "We oppose the teaching of...critical thinking skills." bit.

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

But they do support beating snot-nosed punks at least...
"Classroom Discipline –We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas."

But damn it, they want to illegalize pornography, this cannot stand!
"Addictive Behaviors – We encourage state and federal governments to severely prosecute illegal dealers and manufacturers of addictive substances and pornography. We urge Congress to discourage import of such substances into our country. Faith based rehabilitation programs should be emphasized. We oppose legalization of illicit drugs. We support an effective abstinence-based educational program for children. We oppose any “needle exchange” program. We urge vigorous enforcement of our DUI laws."

Anyway, even if they didn't mean to include the words "critical thinking skills", they still don't want people to have the ability to reevaluate fixed-beliefs. Which require critical thinking skills. Damn, they accidentally said what they meant.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if campers that are not unpacked or sitting on a lot/owners driveway are bound by open container laws and such. Since you don't really have any legal course to camp in most parking lots and public roads, the camper remains a van until such time. This is speculation on my part since I actually haven't run across a case like this.

>> ^ryanbennitt:

>> ^jmd:
#1 This is also the way it is in the US. If you are caught sleeping off a drink in a car you can be charged with DUI.
#2 I think sitting in the passanger seat as the lone person in the car would be treated in the same way as a traffic stop where the driver hops into the passenger seat when the cop isn't looking. They can pretty much assume you are the driver, and again the dui law doesn't require the driver to actually be driving or in the driver seat, just in the car.

So you're not allowed to sleep in a camper van then?

>> ^jmd:
#1 This is also the way it is in the US. If you are caught sleeping off a drink in a car you can be charged with DUI.
#2 I think sitting in the passanger seat as the lone person in the car would be treated in the same way as a traffic stop where the driver hops into the passenger seat when the cop isn't looking. They can pretty much assume you are the driver, and again the dui law doesn't require the driver to actually be driving or in the driver seat, just in the car.


So you're not allowed to sleep in a camper van then?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Mashiki:
Some useful info for you to know. In Canada, don't do this, it's the same as getting behind the wheel intoxicated. Even if you have no intention of driving. Intent is 9/10ths of the law on this.
Then I will defeat your ridiculous law by sleeping in the passenger seat!
ChaosEngine: 1
Canada: 0
suck it, canucks!


#1 This is also the way it is in the US. If you are caught sleeping off a drink in a car you can be charged with DUI.

#2 I think sitting in the passanger seat as the lone person in the car would be treated in the same way as a traffic stop where the driver hops into the passenger seat when the cop isn't looking. They can pretty much assume you are the driver, and again the dui law doesn't require the driver to actually be driving or in the driver seat, just in the car.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!

So you think that he was being a dick to the police at that moment because he chose to post the video? That doesn't make sense to me, but whatever.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
If you fully support his right to not incriminate himself, then it seems like you're saying that you support his right to not answer any questions. How is he being a dick?
Because there is a difference between having a right and choosing to exercise it. Can does not equal should. Legally, you have the right to cheat on your spouse, but it still makes you an asshole for doing it.
Now, maybe there are extenuating circumstances, but going on the evidence available (i.e. this video that the driver presumably chose to post), he wasn't doing this for any grand principle, he was just doing it to be an ass.

First, sorry, I missed the comment where you said you had watched the other video.

Now, the main point of it was that it can in no way ever, ever help you to give the police any information ever, so it's always smarter not to. The police are looking for probable cause (DUI is a very serious offence in most jurisdictions) by pulling people over and asking them for it. Most people are "polite" and volunteer to attempt to give probable cause against themselves, but fail only because they're not driving over the legal limit. That doesn't make it a good idea. The police don't want you to think it's adversarial so that as many people as possible will "politely" submit to the tests.

I know two people who volunteered for the breath test and surprised themselves by failing. One was soon after a single beer, and the second was 10 hours after sleeping off some heavy drinking in a "morning after" DUI check. In the first case, she started crying, and begged and pleaded with the officer who told her she could have refused the test before, but after was too late. She got a very lenient six-month night-time-only suspension of her licence. The second guy went to jail.

So let me rephrase the question:

Based on the other video and the examples I've given you (even if you treat them as hypothetical), I think this guy is better off saying nothing to the police. Do you think I'm wrong?>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^messenger:
So, I take it you still haven't watched the Don't Talk To Cops video. Watch that, then say why you think it would be smarter for him to talk to the police.
I already said I have watched that video and for the most part I agree with it, and I never said it would be smarter for him to talk to the police, I simply don't see my relationship with a cop doing a DUI checkpoint as that adversarial.
I've been breath-tested plenty of times. Most times I haven't had anything to drink, but occasionally I've had a wine or beer with dinner and I know I'm under the limit. Each time, I'm honest and courteous with the officers and I go on my merry way.
It's not an indication of a police state, it's not fascism or anything else, and frankly it trivialises the real abuses of police power.

>> ^messenger:

So, I take it you still haven't watched the Don't Talk To Cops video. Watch that, then say why you think it would be smarter for him to talk to the police.

I already said I have watched that video and for the most part I agree with it, and I never said it would be smarter for him to talk to the police, I simply don't see my relationship with a cop doing a DUI checkpoint as that adversarial.

I've been breath-tested plenty of times. Most times I haven't had anything to drink, but occasionally I've had a wine or beer with dinner and I know I'm under the limit. Each time, I'm honest and courteous with the officers and I go on my merry way.

It's not an indication of a police state, it's not fascism or anything else, and frankly it trivialises the real abuses of police power.

So, I take it you still haven't watched the Don't Talk To Cops video. Watch that, then say why you think it would be smarter for him to talk to the police.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
If you fully support his right to not incriminate himself, then it seems like you're saying that you support his right to not answer any questions. How is he being a dick?
Because there is a difference between having a right and choosing to exercise it. Can does not equal should. Legally, you have the right to cheat on your spouse, but it still makes you an asshole for doing it.
Now, maybe there are extenuating circumstances, but going on the evidence available (i.e. this video that the driver presumably chose to post), he wasn't doing this for any grand principle, he was just doing it to be an ass.

Yup. That's what anonymous tip lines and payphones are for.>> ^deathcow:

I was held against my will once by cops.... because I offered information about a crime I witnessed. I immediately became a suspect they said. I'll let the cops do ALL, ALLLLL of their work from now on without any help of any type by me.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

If you fully support his right to not incriminate himself, then it seems like you're saying that you support his right to not answer any questions. How is he being a dick?

Because there is a difference between having a right and choosing to exercise it. Can does not equal should. Legally, you have the right to cheat on your spouse, but it still makes you an asshole for doing it.

Now, maybe there are extenuating circumstances, but going on the evidence available (i.e. this video that the driver presumably chose to post), he wasn't doing this for any grand principle, he was just doing it to be an ass.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.