‘Two full open cans of beer (dropped) at the officer’s feet’
HAVEN'T HAD ANYTHING TO DRINK SINCE LAST NIGHT, OFFICER
LUMBY – It was more a question of what laws a Lumby man wasn't breaking when he was pulled over on Victoria Day.
A cop parked at the Lumby RCMP detachment noticed him drive by without a seat belt on and using his cell phone on Monday, May 18 around 2 p.m., RCMP spokesperson Gord Molendyk says.
The officer stopped the red Dodge a short distance away, and detected the smell of alcohol on the man’s breath.
“The male advised the officer that he had not consumed liquor since the previous day,” Molendyk says. “However when he stepped out of the vehicle he spilled two full open cans of beer at the officer's feet.”
The 38-year-old man failed a roadside breath sample and stated he did not realize he was anywhere near the Lumby police station.
“Our officer took the added step of playing back the in-car police video for the man to show him of what just happened a few minutes prior,” Molendyk said.
The man earned a heap of charges, including distracted driving, failing to wear a seatbelt, and possessing open alcohol. He was also handed an Immediate Roadside Prohibition which bans him from driving for three months. His vehicle will also be impounded for a month.
To contact the reporter for this story, email Charlotte Helston at chelston@infonews.ca or call 250-309-5230. To contact the editor, email mjones@infonews.ca or call 250-718-2724.
Join the Conversation!
Want to share your thoughts, add context, or connect with others in your community? Create a free account to comment on stories, ask questions, and join meaningful discussions on our new site.
10 responses
-
…they have numbers posted on Billboards so to call ‘Crimestoppers and numbers to call on ‘Poachers’….PLS. post telephone numberson billboards where to call authorities –does 911 still apply in this case? but…all-in-all this Officer didn’t report seeing him driving irratically either…just had ‘no seatbelt and was talking on phone…AT THE SAME TIME’–this action IS against the law & was visible to the ‘eye’ of a dutiful Officer ‘on patrol’~yay!
-
he did fail the breathalyser—I wouldthink that ‘charge’ might be an unreportedan ‘oversight’ from the Reporter—thry did say he got “a heap of charges, including…”
-
Greg Dueck only a small number still appreciate the usefulness of quality Educatotors…glad yu brought ‘cop’ to our attention—I too had similar training–ty for this interesting/informing story.
-
Greg Dueck If we thought the word cop caused any offence to our boys in blue (red?) we’d never use it.
-
Yes, well they aren’t known for their academic acumen. As stated in the Snopes article it’s unlikely many of our modern words came from acronyms.http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/cop.asp While there is something intrinsically pleasing to the notion of the familiar and widely-used word ‘cop’ having entered the language in unusual fashion, whatever we may want to believe, it just didn’t happen that way.”Cop” as a slang term for “police officer” is neither a shortening of “constable on patrol” nor of “citizen on patrol.” We’ve said it before, but it bears saying again: only a fewcommon words truly have acronymic pedigrees, and virtually all of those date from the 20th century and later. Though terms that have been part of the English language for centuries may well have fascinating backstories (and many do), they rarely began their linguistic lives as acronyms, words formed by combining the initial letter(s) of a compound term or phrase.The word ‘cop’ also did not enter the slang lexicon as an allusion to the highly polished buttons (which some say were made of copper) on American turn-of-the-century police uniforms or on those worn by the first London police force of the 1820s. It also doesn’t refer to the metal various police badges or shields were made from.Instead, the police-specific use of “cop” made its way into the English language in far more languid fashion. “Cop” has long existed as a verb meaning “to take or seize,” but it didn’t begin to make the linguistic shifts necessary to turn it into a casual term for “police officer” until the mid-19th century. The first example of ‘cop’ taking the meaning “to arrest” appeared in print around 1844, and the word then swiftly moved from being solely a verb for “take into police custody” to also encompassing a noun referring to the one doing the detaining. By 1846, policemen were being described as “coppers,” the ‘-er’ ending having been appended to the “arrest” form of the verb, and by 1859 “coppers” were also being called “cops,” the latter word a shortening of the former.Read more at http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/cop.asp#T4S8kBIIsKikE62M.99.And over at orvillejenkins.com they put it this way:The term “copper” was originally used in England as a slang word for a police officer.This term was used, however, as a term of abuse by criminals, especially petty street criminals.It was considered highly derogatory by the police themselves.It was made illegal in England to use this term for a police officer, because it was so derogatory.This is what my teacher was getting at. The origin of the word was considered highly derogatory and offensive. Today the media itself seems oblivious of this fact.
-
…but he DIDN’T get an IMPARED charge by not addmitting to have drank at all that day.
-
cop stands for Constable on Patrol.. my Dad was a mountie.. so is my bro.. we never heard of it as disrespectful.
-
too funny, smile of the day (so far) a 38yr old sh#t for brains VS a great Canadian Mountie, sh#t for brains looses…..The Wheel and the Booze Don’t Mix….Don’t Be A Sh#t For Brains………………just sayin.
-
In school we were taught that to refer to a police officer with the word cop was rude and disrespectful. World has changed so much.
-
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.