Disappointing to say the least
Greg drove while drunk after Redblacks won
And Crown inexplicably let him off the hook preferring a cash settlement vs going for what seems an easy guilty verdict
We should all get his Lawyer's name. If we ever need one that's the connected guy to get.
1 Like
He’s a good guy but it’s the principal of it. This is a very serious offender and is preached day after day but yet he got off . If he wasn’t a Redblacks or created the MIRACLE ON BANK ST would he have got the same verdict??
2 Likes
Not a chance.
1 Like
I doubt the judge even knew who he was. Yes it's serious, but a first time offender, with a track record of helping in the community etc He was fighting it on the grounds that there was no reason to stop him. His lawyers stated that he wasn't swerving or speeding, there was no reason to pull him over. The law states you need to have a reason to pull someone over.
Who hasn't had one drink too many and decided to drive.
Are you friggin serious with that last comment. ALOT OF PEOPLE have chosen not to drink and drive in there life time.
First of all it was a ride check and secondly how do you know the judge didn’t know the name. Like I said before he knew the consequences of alcohol in your system. He seems by interviews that he’s a real good guy but others have been charged why not him ..... I’m sure it’s caused him a lot of guilt but it is a lesson he dodged luckily.
2 Likes
Absolutely, I know some really great people who do a lot some doctors, dentists who do freebees and they didn't get off. Also, seen some people lose their career over a DUI conviction.
2 Likes
Charleston Hughes paid his penalty in Sask.
I may have done so about 45 yrs ago, but I dont think so. I know not since then. No excuse for anybody to do so, even if it is me.
1 Like
True but he wasn't charged with a DUI , he was charged with refusing a breath sample. He was stopped and refused because he said there was no reason to stop him.
Since he refused, he was charged with failing to give a breath sample.
The judge threw it out and agreed that no reason to stop him. Since no sample, no evidence that he was drinking.
No charge, no record
works for me
@atlanticflfan do you actually believe that?
I guarantee you that the judge and lawyers were all well aware of who he was
Even if he was not a pro football player I think your reasoning is utterly absurd to think in these kind of cases the people involved in them do not know who they are dealing with
His lawyer negotiated an out
Vast majority of the country is going to be upset because this is a crime that besides being very serious has been demonized in popular culture
1 Like
That was me too though not quite that long ago but quite awhile ago ...there must be angels and all that because though I was pulled over once, I never got into trouble.
At a certain age and perhaps a bit late I figured out it was dumb to roll those dice even driving buzzed (not over the legal limit but you can still be cited), which was not viewed as harshly until the last decade in much of the US because there was simply so much of it.
Wow it sure has been awhile since I have read about this issue. It amazes me that as you describe is still the law in some places. By now by comparison it's likely every state in the US, but when you get your driver licence you sign a form that affirms that in the event you refuse a sobriety test, your licence will be suspended or more for a certain period.
Now of course historically in US law that alternative could be better than a positive test and all that would come with that including likely loss of your licence anyway, but of course for the last decade plus now there is video evidence on the scene considered as well.
On the flip side, I read a great article few years ago that some of those breathalzyer test devices indeed were flawed and generated heavily variable readings.
In the end you are out 5 figures here in the US even if you are found not guilty.
And go figure here in 2021 when I drive home from work from the City of Philadelphia, the common problem spotted is hardly drunk driving but what is often stoned driving and there is no solid way to test for that and different enforcement applies.
The judge did not "throw it out" lol
He negotiated a deal
He still plead guilty to "Careless Driving" charge (if you are not in ON, that is the absolute most severe ticket there is; only a criminal offence carries greater sentence)
Not only will that stick to his record for multiple years, he gets a huge insurance hike as a result (many insurers will refuse him for this) he carries 6 demerit points (and this new 6 + his previous convictions for unrelated offences has resulted in the suspension of his ON driving rights)
He is required to complete the "Back on Track" driver re-education program before he is allowed to legally drive again
So trying to fob this off as "just refusing a test" is very ignorant....
@Paolo_X since you in this thread as well 
1 Like
Refusing a breathalyzer in this country is the same penalty as DUI. He got off, good for him.
Even not driving you are legally required to blow
(eg if you drive home, cops show up at your front door after someone complained, they ask you to blow)
A police officer is allowed to test you 2 hours AFTER you were driving (but honestly if you are still over limit at that point you were really wasted)