Two more idiots off the road!

[67vertman]

although these guys did break the law. I disagree with taking their cars from them.  Where will it stop?
Should the authorities be allowed to take your car if you run a stop light or stop sign.
Or, make an illegal right turn, speeding or other driving infraction.

Yes the penalties, should be stiff and their cars held from them for a period of time, i would hate to lose my car because a law enforcement officer, makes a judgment call on whether or not I was street racing.

[Challenger6pak]

U S Constitution Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I am against the Government just taking things from people. Where will it end? What new law will be passed that says they can take something I own since it violated their new law?  I wish the Constitution was more 'black and white' on this issue.
I am against the actions of the 'two idiots' also.  If they can have a $230,000 car, do you think they can't get another one as easily as they can drive without a license, etc. They can.  They feel they are above the law.  How do you stop them?  I don't know.  This has been an ongoing battle in one form or another since the automobile was created.   

[Sean]

U S Constitution Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I am against the Government just taking things from people. Where will it end? What new law will be passed that says they can take something I own since it violated their new law?  I wish the Constitution was more 'black and white' on this issue.
I am against the actions of the 'two idiots' also.  If they can have a $230,000 car, do you think they can't get another one as easily as they can drive without a license, etc. They can.  They feel they are above the law.  How do you stop them?  I don't know.  This has been an ongoing battle in one form or another since the automobile was created.

If they had a reason for going 80 mph over the speed limit, then the 4th Amendment would be on their side (if they were in the US).   There was no reason for their acts, I don't see how the the 4th Amendment would be an arguement for these guys...  They threw the 4th Amendment out the door when they put the pedal to the floor.   

 
Sean

[AARCUDADEN]

Problem is this has nothing to do with punishment.  It's clearly a way to generate revenue.

The next step is to gradually reduce the limits they set to confiscate your car.  Maybe they will take your minivan in the long run.

[bigblock4speedman]

Policies like this can lead to "the long arm of the law, government" to think they have to take a man's home and everything he owns because he posted something on his computer that they didn't agree with.  Well, he was in his home when he did this, so they feel justified in disposessing him and putting him in the street, for the greater good of everyone.  This sounds crazy, and it is!  No laws or so-called "reasons" can justify stealing.

 

[torredcuda]

The politicians,courts and leos will tell you it`s a deterrent to keep poeple from street racing but stonger penalties including loss of license,heavy fines and posible jail time if there were injurys to bystanders would do the same thing.I agree it is just stealing someones property for profit the same as they do for drug dealers by taking thier car or home if they are dealing from them,it`s all about money.I don`t see how it is much of a detterent as they can very easily buy another car. 

[Aussie Challenger]

I have to agree that taking a persons property should only be done if that property is gained through illegal activities. The fine was a joke, ban them from driving for a period of time, 12 months, confiscate their car for that time and make them pay storage fees. If they are caught driving in that time then the suspension time should be doubled, that should get their attention.   

[BadJoey]

I do not think taking the cars is about the money . It is meant as a deturant to the next racer . You have to admit if you saw this you would think twice before doing 120 in a 40 . If the cars were old beat up junk they would still take them . Can't back it up but I have been told they will take your car in Syracuse no matter how fast you're going if you are racing . I think there should be a speed factor before they take your car , say 30 mph over the limit .

[purple1]

This all comes down to the question.... Where do we draw the line?

How far do "WE" let the gov. go here. In the next revision of these laws we may see a few words get changed to any display of speed or even a burn out could be enough for the laws to take away ones personal property (in this case our cars). Limits must be built into the laws.

The laws have good intentions, but I think it goes too far. 

[Cooter]

Well, We are all assuming that the Gov. took the cars for pure profit here. How do we know that the fines and such were so high that the cars had to be sold off to pay them? How do we know that the cars involved weren't sold at the hands of the other half's consent?

I've known for years as I stated that you get busted for street racing, you will lose your ride in the State of Virginia. This is widely known and lemme tell you, it works..Now, you always have the two inevidable idiots, like these two, that think they don't apply, or simply don't care.

There are fines up to at least 20 MPH over the speed limit and there have been instances where I personally, have been busted for what was Considered by the officer at the time, to be "Street racing" and didn't lose my ride. I think the sheer speed, coupled with the fact it was in a 40 MPH zone, on top of the fact PEOPLE were near by, got the cars taken away.. Politics gets involved when something this crazy happens and pressure ot see these "punks" "put in their place" by the public forces the hands of the local authorities...

[purple1]

This is all in debate...

But, these type of seizures are made before due process.

It all comes down to the same questions. Where is that limit of gov. to be placed? Who gets to say when a vehicle can be seized? When do these laws go too far? 

[priderocks]

purple1 is correct, and here is why the seizure/sale is wrong.

If it's acceptable to take the cars at 120 in a 40 zone, is it ok to take them if they were doing 90? 65? 50? Where do you draw the line? The problem is YOU don't draw the line, some government agency does. This agency is only ostensibly concerned about public safety- it's real concerns, like any government agency, is the accruing of power to itself, and increasing its revenue base.

If police are called repeatedly to a home for domestic violence (or wild parties,or whatever), after say five such calls should they have the right to seize and sell that house? This is akin to cutting off the hands of a thief in some Islamic nations. Nobody is condoning stealing or domestic violence or reckless driving, but the appropriateness of the punishment to the crime, and appropriate rule of law, is what seperates nations where freedom is higher than law, and nations where rights of the citizenry trump government heavy-handedness.

[ChallengerHK]

I see two issues here.

First, the argument is that this will help prevent deaths by speeding motorists.  If that is indeed the purpose of this type of law then it moves the government from punishing us for what we DO to punishing us for what we MIGHT do.

Second, there are many places where the cops are far more dangerous than the criminals, and I live in one.  In Virginia, state law allows the cops to refuse to release any information on internal investigations. Translated, this means they can do as they please, and don't have to tell you why, including and up to murder (they just refused to say why they gunned a man down in Fairfax, and no one can make they do differently). A law like this gives them carte blanche to further these types of activities.

[scatpack_69]

If they had a reason for going 80 mph over the speed limit, then the 4th Amendment would be on their side (if they were in the US).   There was no reason for their acts, I don't see how the the 4th Amendment would be an arguement for these guys...  They threw the 4th Amendment out the door when they put the pedal to the floor.    
Sean

Please explain the logic here. Regardless of what they did, they have the right of protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. If they run drugs, and bought these cars to transport drugs, then so be it. But out making a living like anyone else (better than many obviously) and out on a Sunday drive, end up hauling tail, does NOT constitute seizure and SALE of said vehicle.

Seize it for the period of time the license is suspended (or they are in jail) then they get it back after paying all related fines and reasonable storage fees. People screw up. Tell me you've never done wrong and I'll tell you your full of chit.

It is NOT the responsibility of the government to sell one's vehicle as a form of punishment. Just as I can't come take your property, nor should the government be able to. That's what's wrong, no one stands up to the government and tells them they have overstepped their bounds, and they do it a LOT

[tommyg29]

very slippery slope....taking peoples personal property like that. There are already countless laws on the books that could have "handled" that situation.
Now the governement has their foot in the door to take even more.
Whats to prevent them now from "adjusting" the law to take your car when you do 70 in a 40?
Where does it end?