Author Topic: Plainfields new DARE car (Read 3134 times)

whitesatinmopar · « **Reply #15 on:** June 22, 2007 - 04:17:17 PM »

Sounds like when he goes to trial his lawyer should request a trial before three judges (actually, judges are usually quite liberal) rather than a 12 person jury because each of those jurors is going to visually see "WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED", it's only human. We can't say he got what he deserved because that is yet to be determined, but as far as loosing his car (no matter what it is) I'd have to agree he did deserve that.

MJS73 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 22, 2007 - 04:20:29 PM »

My understanding is that, the ways these laws are written, the vehicle is seized upon arrest, not conviction. Doesn't bother me, just wanted to point it out.

Mike

Bonkers · « **Reply #17 on:** June 23, 2007 - 03:37:36 AM »

Quote from: MJS73 on June 22, 2007 - 04:52:55 AM

Hey Bonkers, do you live around there? I live about three miles from that location and I can tell you that Essington Road from 127th to 135th is 100% heavily residential, a lot of young families over there.

Interesting, a friend of mine in Kenilworth tells me:

Quote

Seriously, Plainfield and the surrounding area are pretty rural. That road is dry as a bone and just as straight. Until the subdivision at the end, there is nothing and you have a clear view all the way down. This is Illinois, and there are no hills to speak of.

One thing I love about this club - just about every other car club I belong to is furious about the government's taking of personal property - you guys seem to be content on letting the driver hang. Interesting how different the majority views are between the different styles of cars.

torredcuda · « **Reply #18 on:** June 23, 2007 - 04:15:13 AM »

Quote from: MJS73 on June 22, 2007 - 04:20:29 PM

My understanding is that, the ways these laws are written, the vehicle is seized upon arrest, not conviction. Doesn't bother me, just wanted to point it out.

Mike

That does bother me,no longer innocent untill proven giulty?A car being impouded at time of arrest is normal,being able to seize someones property without a trial is wrong.
In this case the driver may have had a chioce and chose to relinquish his car or do time?What he did was stupid and I don`t feel bad for what he got.

Pistol Gripper · « **Reply #19 on:** June 23, 2007 - 04:21:17 AM »

Bonkers,

In this case, I think taking his car was justified, but in most cases, I want the gov't to keep their noses put of things. I agree with you that this board is different, sometimes I see things like the majority, a lot of times not. I stick around because, by and large, the members hearts are in the right place, even if their eyes see things differently. That and things don't tend to get out of hand.

torredcuda,

I'm not sure I like the idea either, I'm sure the intent was to come down hard on drug traffickers, but in this case after a trial would have been better.

Cheers,

P.G.

whitesatinmopar · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2007 - 04:46:34 AM »

With Torred and Keith but I guess my thought is he deserved to have his car taken, and due to a police officer in pursuit and with on board video evidence, is there any real chance of him not being convicted of his charges? But there certainly is a difference between impounded and conficated.

purple1 · « **Reply #21 on:** June 23, 2007 - 07:06:38 AM »

Bonkers, Now that some more facts seem to be coming out. There is some inconsistence in the real deal here. I now find myself questioning this action.

Dave

MJS73 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 23, 2007 - 03:07:33 PM »

Quote

Interesting, a friend of mine in Kenilworth tells me: Seriously, Plainfield and the surrounding area are pretty rural. That road is dry as a bone and just as straight. Until the subdivision at the end, there is nothing and you have a clear view all the way down. This is Illinois, and there are no hills to speak of.

Kenilworth is about 50 miles northeast of Plainfield. I live 3 miles away from that area and I travel it daily. I can't tell you when Google Earth took that shot (Google Earth is not a live shot), but that part of Plainfield (which is no longer the rural community it was 20 years ago) has been heavily developed over the past 5 years and is still growing rapidly. It's just as dense as Naperville or any of the other suburbs around it. West of the Plainfield limits is still rural, but growing, but this area is at the northeast corner of Plainfield, bordering Bolingbrook and Romeoville.

Traffic in that part (and all of Plainfield) is very heavy, since the roads are small and narrow and the infrastructure hasn't caught up with development. The area is full of young families with small kids and also a lot of construction traffic. The Google Earth photo you posted is irrelevant as far as what the area looks like today, and it doesn't sound like your friend has been down here lately, either.

The guy had no business doing 127 anywhere near here (or anywhere off a race track, for that matter) and I'm fine with the police taking his car in that circumstance. Less chance he'll hit me or my family.

Mike

bb71challenger · « **Reply #23 on:** June 23, 2007 - 03:56:13 PM »

Quote from: Bonkers on June 23, 2007 - 03:37:36 AM

Interesting, a friend of mine in Kenilworth tells me:

Interesting how different the majority views are between the different styles of cars.

By different styles do you mean mopar vs. gm/ford or musclecars vs. viper owners? I am like the others, if this guy was doing that then he gets what he deserves. I seriously hope you are not implying that viper owners should get a break from the law because they paid more for their cars. Nowadays there are some of our musclecars going for what 3 or 4 vipers would cost so I really dont think you meant it that way. I find it hard to believe anyone could defend the guy for what it was written that he did.

Hopalong · « **Reply #24 on:** June 24, 2007 - 07:39:41 PM »

If the car was taken LEGALLY, then I do not have any problem with this. I DO have a problem with the idiot that was driving the car. If you can afford a Viper, then you can usually afford to go to a track day event or autocross event to get your high speed thrills. IF this guy was driving around on a suspended license, what are the reasons for it being suspended? I posted some local news articles here before about a local a-hole that was driving around on a suspended license. He managed to get a passenger killed, but "He's not a bad driver, ask anyone.." Oh wait, let me correct myself. He did not have a suspended license, he never had one to begin with. The test was too hard, too many questions that don't mean anything.

ChallengerHK · « **Reply #25 on:** June 24, 2007 - 07:49:37 PM »

The problem with allowing them to seize a car (or anything else) because someone is charged (as opposed to convicted) is that you're then only a short step away from having them make up crimes to seize whatever they want. Years ago in Virginia I was pulled over for running a green light (you read that right) on Christmas Eve by a drunken cop who was looking for someone to mess with because he was ticked off that he had to work on Xmas Eve. Among other things he charged me with was trying to run from him (I pulled over within seconds after he turned his lights on, but he was so drunk he may have thought I was running for all I know). If this law had been in effect he could have taken my car.

The Founding Fathers created a system in which the government had to reasonably prove we were guilty of crimes before meting out punihsment to prevent just such problems. If we decide people are guilty because they're charged or guilty because we don't like them, we might as well throw that whole system out.

Bonkers · « **Reply #26 on:** June 25, 2007 - 12:59:27 AM »

Quote

That does bother me,no longer innocent untill proven giulty?

Thats what started me on my whole little crusade here - this cop tald the guy his car was seized before he even saw a judge. Covincted and punished before trial is a very anti-american way of dealing justice.

Quote

a police officer in pursuit and with on board video evidence,

I don't see anything about any video evidence - my understanding is it was solely the cops word. If you have another source of information please let me know. I am trying to learn everything I can on this.

Quote

Now that some more facts seem to be coming out. There is some inconsistence in the real deal here.

Again - if you have information beyond what I have please let me know.

Quote

I live 3 miles away from that area and I travel it daily.

Take a picture of the road and send it to me. Its not personal, I've never been to Plainfield, I just trust what a good friend and a certified satelite picture tell me over someone I do not know.

Quote

By different styles do you mean mopar vs. gm/ford or musclecars vs. viper owners?

I'm currently an active member of about a dozen car sites ranging from Mustangs to GT40s. Old/new/young/old.

Quote

I seriously hope you are not implying that viper owners should get a break from the law because they paid more for their cars

No what I am saying is that an owner of a 1996 Camaro RS busted for the same crime should have a $68,000 fine (the most recent estimated value) slapped to his head to make it even. According to another Illinois article about suspended licenses a car has to meet very specific qualifications to be confiscated on a traffic offense. Since this car did not qualify to be seized under that law the offense became a "felony issue." The trouble there is that there is nothing limiting the felony charge - if they guy ran away on foot the cops would have still be able to steal the car.

Quote

If this law had been in effect he could have taken my car.

Here in Delaware if you pull up to a light and it turns green, and the guy next to you floors it then you can be charged with exhibition of speed AND reckless driving. You don't even have to be moving.

Should the guy burn? Absolutely, but so should everyone else who does the same thing. Crime and punishment should be equal for all.

heminut · « **Reply #27 on:** June 25, 2007 - 09:42:11 AM »

If the car was converted to police OWNERSHIP before the driver was convicted and was done according to the law then yes, I have to agree that there is something wrong with the law. No person in this country should lose property before being convicted in a court of law. That would definately violate the U.S. Constitution!

MyMopar · « **Reply #28 on:** June 26, 2007 - 01:05:15 PM »

There are many problems with the justice system and those that enforce it.
I see a problem with property being seized prior to any conviction. Guilty until proven otherwise doesn't bode well with me.
However the facts of the case on hand are different.
1. The driver had a suspended license.
2. I do believe that a board member that lives 3 miles from the area is MUCH MORE ACCURATE than a photo taken w/o a date stamp on it. Google earth images aren't updated daily, heck not even yearly. SO the guy was speeding through a residential area, not good at all.
3. It says he was swerving in and out of traffic.
4. It also states he was trying to hide in the industrial park.

So how could you compare this (what the guy did) to a person driving a Viper on the open highway doing 100. Do you think the Viper would have been seized in this case? I don't think so.
The driver clearly broke many laws in what he did. If he has a Viper, he should be able to afford a damn good lawyer that could have contested the felony charges and gotten his car back, but either he can't afford a lawyer (a good one) or the lawyer couldn't battle the court system with the overwhelming evidence against the driver(client).

As far as trying to establish a value for everyone to pay, the system already does.
The guy driving the Viper has $$$ to spend on his car so he does.
The guy driving the Camaro has $$ to spend on his car so he does.
They both spent what they could afford to spend, so they are both at the same financial level. Lets say you made $50k a year and bought a SRT Neon in cash because that is what you could afford on your salary and it got seized because you were street racing in the eldery neighborhood. You are now out say $25k.
Now your buddy who dropped out of highschool but is a good guy makes $16k at Walmart. He bought a used Crossfire off ebay for $8k and was racing with you when your car got seized so his car also was seized. So he is now out $8k.

So in your opinion he should pay an additional $17k to make things fair. But wait, he only makes $16k a year where you make $50k a year. Also you both lost the same amount of money in car value, half a years pay, you lost 50% of your salary and so did he, so in the end you both paid the same amount.
The old saying you got to pay to paly applies here. If I was stupid enough to be driving around on a suspended license knowing that their is a slight possibility that my ride could be seized, I wouldn't be riding in my pride and joy, that is for sure.

purple1 · « **Reply #29 on:** June 26, 2007 - 02:49:08 PM »

One thing has me questioning this GOVERNMENT ACTION!

Was this mans property taken from him WITHOUT DUE PROCESS???

My first post said he got what he deserved. I still believe that to be true had he been convicted FIRST! It does not matter that it was a Viper or a Moped. It does not matter if that the road was full of traffic and people. That is not the point.

If the law is such that they can take a persons property without due process by a court of law, then the LAW IS WRONG, and should be changed now. Before someone else�s property is taken away before a court has made a verdict. That is the point...

Author Topic: Plainfields new DARE car (Read 3134 times)

whitesatinmopar

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

MJS73

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

Bonkers

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

torredcuda

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

Pistol Gripper

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

whitesatinmopar

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

purple1

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

MJS73

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

bb71challenger

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

Hopalong

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

ChallengerHK

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

Bonkers

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

heminut

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

MyMopar

Re: Plainfields new DARE car

purple1

Re: Plainfields new DARE car