Close Menu
    Kanada

    Laut BC RCMP nutzte ein betrunkener Fahrer „juristische Fiktion“ als Argument dafür, dass er keinen Führerschein benötige


    Laut BC RCMP nutzte ein betrunkener Fahrer „juristische Fiktion“ als Argument dafür, dass er keinen Führerschein benötige

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/drunk-driver-used-legal-fiction-as-argument-he-didnt-need-a-licence-bc-rcmp-say/

    Share.
    View 12 Comments

    12 Kommentare

    1. cyclinginvancouver on

      >A man who was allegedly driving drunk recently told police that he didn’t need a licence to drive, nor does he drive at all, according to Mission RCMP.

      >The detachment said officers received a report of a possibly impaired driver in a liquor store parking lot on April 8, and found a 54-year-old man in the driver’s seat.

      >“Upon speaking with the man, he refused to provide a driver’s license, saying that he didn’t need a license to drive, because it was not a ‘legal fiction,’ and that he doesn’t drive – he only ‘travels,’” Mounties wrote in a statement Sunday.

      >Police said they could smell liquor on the man’s breath, but when asked to perform a breathalyzer test he refused and told officers, “I am not a legal fiction to provide a sample to you.”

      >As the man would not reveal his identity, police arrested him on grounds of obstructing a peace officer and took him to the detachment, where he remained until police confirmed it.

      >According to police, the man was found not to have a valid driver’s licence. He was handed a 90-day driving prohibition and a 30-day vehicle impound.

    2. JadeLens on

      90 day driving prohibitions only work on people who aren’t trying to convince police officers that while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle they aren’t ‚driving’…

      Ugh…

    7. monotious on

      Does everyone else other than me understand what the police officer wrote in the statement?

      “Upon speaking with the man, he refused to provide a driver’s license, saying that he didn’t need a license to drive, because it was not a ‘legal fiction,’ and that he doesn’t drive – he only ‘travels,’” Mounties wrote in a statement Sunday. 

      I mean, what is “it” that is “not a legal fiction”? Is the police officer saying that the man claimed that 

      – he (the drunk man) was not a legal fiction
      – driver’s license is not a legal fiction
      – law against drunk driving is not a legal fiction
      – the police officer is not a legal fiction
      – the man’a act of sitting in the driver’s seat being deemed to be drinking and driving is not a legal fiction

      If I were to evaluate the argument I would need to understand it first, but I am not even understanding what he purportedly said.

    8. Greekmom99 on

      LoL. They believe that they are Sovereign Citizens. If you go on YouTube, there is a shit ton of road stops where they claim they are travelling and not driving, won’t provide their name as their name isn’t a „legal corporation“ and a whole other lot of shit.

    11. Outrageous-Estimate9 on

      This is the old Sovereign Citizen argument

      Dont need license because they dont drive, they only „travel“ in their car

      Some really funny sov cit videos on youtube if you want to watch them argue with police and judges

    12. stickmanDave on

      Not only is the „travelling“ thing a misunderstanding of the constitution, it’s a misunderstanding of the *American* constitution!

    Leave A Reply