[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

It's kind of a dumbass thing to say tho. Would you feel the same way if he got towed from a rush hour no parking zone and this happened.

No, I would feel different if he simply got towed for parking. But he didn't.

I have no sympathy for drinking and driving. It is a personal choice to take other people's lives in your drunk hands and drive, so the concequences should reflect that. His car probabally would never be returned to him if he were convicted of impaired driving. It sucks that mistakes were made, in not waiting for a conviction before recycling his car. But it's not like it was the 1957 Ferrari Daytona either.

He did suffer the consequences legally established for his actions. Having a capricious extra punishment makes no sense. This has nothing to do with a conviction - he wasn't charged with anything. Busters was not obliged to wait, they were obliged to return his car to him in the same condition they found it.

And what, a guy who can afford a million dollar car gets compensated, but a Tercel driver doesn't?

But as I say, he's also shooting for the moon asking for 6 grand.

The miststake was just that - a mistake. No malice was intended. It's not 'extra punishment', it's an error. They happen.

I never said he shouldn't be compensated for his POS; nor that he had ever been convicted of anything, just that I have no sympathy that his POS got crushed. If he wasn't suspected of impaired driving, the car never would have been impounded.

I'd give him book value for it, and change for the bus.

[Freakinoldguy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Everyone assumes this guy was "drunk" but the question I have is. Was he legally drunk as defined by law or Gordon Campbell drunk as defined by a money grab and yes it does makes a difference?

Because, if he was legally drunk ie over .08 then he deserves alot worse, but, if he was BC Lieberal Drunk ie over .05 then he should be reimbursed for the car, towing bill, and aggravation because he, was only guilty of living in some elected twits idea of utopia.

There's a real simple solution. If yer gonna drink at all, don't drive your car. I mean for fuck sakes, how many times do people gotta be told this stuff?

Bet this dipshit is wishin' he took a cab now

Then the BC Government should grow a set and pass a law that says anyone with alcohol or for the sake of some on this board, marijuana. in their system is legally impaired and levels don't matter, be it .01 or .05 or .08.

If these assclowns wanted to stop drunk driving or at least punish the guilty they should stop trying to make it a revenue generating exercise like it is now.

[Brenda]

$1:

I'd give him book value for it, and change for the bus.

Why book value? He needs to replace a working method of transportation which was destroyed "by mistake". Why should he have to pay?

When I throw a rock through your window, which was intended for someone else's head, should I just give you book value of the second hand, 30 year old windowpane, or should I replace your window and cover the damage that rock did inside your house? Like, went through your $3000 HD flatscreen?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Everyone assumes this guy was "drunk" but the question I have is. Was he legally drunk as defined by law or Gordon Campbell drunk as defined by a money grab and yes it does makes a difference?

Because, if he was legally drunk ie over .08 then he deserves alot worse, but, if he was BC Lieberal Drunk ie over .05 then he should be reimbursed for the car, towing bill, and aggravation because he, was only guilty of living in some elected twits idea of utopia.

There's a real simple solution. If yer gonna drink at all, don't drive your car. I mean for fuck sakes, how many times do people gotta be told this stuff?

Bet this dipshit is wishin' he took a cab now

Then the BC Government should grow a set and pass a law that says anyone with alcohol or for the sake of some on this board, marijuana. in their system is legally impaired and levels don't matter, be it .01 or .05 or .08.

Yeah, well when that was suggested there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on here because, "My mouthwash and dishsoap contain alcohol and I could lose my licence just for gargling or washing dishes."

[Freakinoldguy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Yeah, well when that was suggested there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on here because, "My mouthwash and dishsoap contain alcohol and I could lose my licence just for gargling or washing dishes."

That excuse is bullshit. If they have a zero tolerance policy and you happen to have just gargled with dishsoap and blow over .00 then there's likely a problem with:

A. you're attitude when you got stopped;
b. you're ability to tell the truth when stopped;
c. their machine.

It's simple. When the tolerance level hits zero, if you're caught smoking dope and driving.... prison, if you get caught drinking and driving..... prison with a very large homosexual cellmate and if you can't handle that don't do dishes and get you stupid ass to the pharmacy and buy some "NON ALCOHOLIC" fekin mouthwash.

I personally don't give a shit what the limit is for either drug, cause, if you're so stupid as to get caught because of a zero tolerance policy you don't deserve to inhabit the earth with the smarter primates but then again the government should call the .05 limit what it is.

A freakin tax for stupidity.

[DrCaleb]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

I'd give him book value for it, and change for the bus.

Why book value? He needs to replace a working method of transportation which was destroyed "by mistake". Why should he have to pay?

When I throw a rock through your window, which was intended for someone else's head, should I just give you book value of the second hand, 30 year old windowpane, or should I replace your window and cover the damage that rock did inside your house? Like, went through your $3000 HD flatscreen?

Because book value is the only value we can be sure of. Why should the towing company pay for sentimental value, and why should they enable more alleged drinking and driving? You buy a car, you accept that it will be worth a little less every day until it is only worth $75 for the kidney foundation to come tow it away. Because he thinks it's worth $6000 doesn't mean he is going to find anyone to buy it for $6000 (if it hadn't been crushed).

It's only 'worth' what someone else is willing to 'pay' for it. That, in most cases, is 'Black Book' value. If it's really well kept, some may pay 5% or 10% more. But 1000%? Doubtful.

We can discuss hypothetical situations all day long. What if they impounded his glasses and broke them? What if they impounded a blind person's seeing eye dog? They are irrelevant. We are talking about a car that was impounded because of suspected impaired driving. Hypothetical scenarios don't apply to reality.

[Brenda]

IF he had wanted to sell it, I would agree. I agree with you that $6000 is a bit much, but he has to buy another car, and in this case, I think the towing company should give him a similar car back. THEY messed up.

The punishment just does not fit the crime. No judge had sentenced this car to death.