Author Topic: Two more idiots off the road! (Read 9407 times)

scatpack_69 · « **Reply #30 on:** November 30, 2010 - 02:42:59 PM »

They don't take and sell the vehicles of repeat DUI offendors, do they? Nope, slap them on the hand and let them go.

I'd almost prefer sober speeders over drunks under the speed limit

hpe600rt · « **Reply #31 on:** December 01, 2010 - 08:25:43 AM »

well if speeding is the problem then why not make cars that only go up to 70 mph.why do all the cars go way faster then thay need to,if no one was speeding the cops would be broke,well hell why not take everyones car away and give them slower ones.well let me tell you something i dont speed or drag race any moure even though kids try to get me to all the time because i grew up and love my car to much to chance crashing it for something dumb,but if a cop thinks he is getting my car think again,you better catch me first it will be just like the vanshing point movie anther nut in a challenger lol

Sean · « **Reply #32 on:** December 01, 2010 - 01:43:42 PM »

Quote from: scatpack_69 on November 30, 2010 - 01:17:46 AM

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

The point I'm trying to make is their actions well exceeded what the 'average' or 'reasonable' person would do. Therefore, in accordance with the 4th Amendment, the cops had every right to search and seize their automobiles.

I think what is really the heart of this debate is what to do with the cars after they are seized and how do you punish them for thier excessively irresponsible actions. But really, what's the difference if you take their car or take their cash? Are you not taking something that belongs to them? Isn't their money just as much their property as their car?

I'm saying, make the punishemnt fit the crime and the offender(s) committing the crime. This is just related to speeding or other automotive offenses - I'm not considering murder, kidnapping or any other types of crimes... Lets say the fine for 80 over is $1000, the car seized for a month and suspended license for a month (making up numbers here just to prove a point). That would be small peanuts for the guy driving the Ferarri, he's most likely got other cars to drive once he gets his license back and may even have the $1000 in his wallet at all times (yes I'm stereotyping here). Now, take a guy on a fixed or low income - that could be devastating! But, with the effort and time it would take to figure out the offenders income, worth, etc... I don't think it would be possible with today's court system. It's not doable, but I think it's fair.

How about a compromise? Fine the guys the value of their Ferarri or BMW and let them keep the car? That would definately get their attention!!! And they would get to keep their property (the cars) and have their property taken (cash). Wait, either way they are getting something material taken from them that they can't get back.

My bottom line is that I don't think that punishments for crimes in many cases is tough enough. Tough enough to make them from repeating the offense. For example: a few weeks ago I read a story in the paper about a guy in his 40s who just got his 5th DUI. The reason it made the papers is that he plowed into another car and killed/seriously injured those in the other car. Another example I heard about a couple months ago was a street racing incident where more people we hurt/killed in the Los Angeles area. The driver had a list automobile related arrests and he was in his 20s if I remember right. The corrective actions for their offenses was not enough to keep them from repeating the offenses. Slapping them on the wrist and sending them on their merry way didn't have enough of an impact to change their behavior. Hopefully the manslaughter charges they get will! But why should it come to that? What's to keep the two guys in the Ferarri & BMW from street racing again if they're without their cars for a few months and have a few fines to pay?

Sean

purple1 · « **Reply #33 on:** December 01, 2010 - 03:14:05 PM »

The main point everyone must understand is that these type of seizures/sales of property are made BEFORE DUE PROCESS!!! The cars were taken from the owners before a conviction of any crime.

That is a clear violation of rights!!!

Sean · « **Reply #34 on:** December 01, 2010 - 04:44:17 PM »

Excellent point, Dave! I whole heartedly agree!

What if the owner of the car sells the car before he gets his day in court? What then? Do you seize the money he got for selling the car? What if he sold it to his buddy for $10?

Sean

NoMope Greg · « **Reply #35 on:** December 01, 2010 - 04:58:50 PM »

Quote from: purple1 on December 01, 2010 - 03:14:05 PM

The main point everyone must understand is that these type of seizures/sales of property are made BEFORE DUE PROCESS!!! The cars were taken from the owners before a conviction of any crime.

That is a clear violation of rights!!!

Not necessarily. First, let's keep in mind this happened in Canada. I looked up the Canadian constitution and it says nothing about due process. Articles 7 & 8 read thus:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

I'm reasonably certain that Canada follows similar due process rules to the US. I think it's also important to note that the forfeiture probably did happen after due process. Due process is just a fancy way of saying there's going to be a step-by-step way of handling legal issues between the state and the individual (or between individuals or private entities). Given that the arrest happened on September 25th and the news articles detailing the forfeiture are dated November 23rd, I think it's reasonable to assume that there was some sort of legal proceedings (due process) in the intervening eight weeks. More than likely, the perps pled guilty after the overwhelming evidence of the mother and RCMP officers.

burnt orange · « **Reply #36 on:** December 01, 2010 - 05:27:37 PM »

Cases are referred to the civil forfeiture office by police and regulatory bodies such as the B.C. Securities Commission.

Here's how the process works:

The province sues in civil court, files a statement of claim and supporting affidavits making allegations that require the defendants to answer, showing they did not gain the asset from unlawful activity or use it in the commission of a criminal act.

Examinations for discovery are conducted and cases are decided on the civil standard of proof -- the balance of probabilities --rather than the higher criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt).

Once a judge decides an asset is forfeited, it can be sold and the proceeds used by the government for four purposes: to compensate victims of crime, fund crime prevention programs, remedy the effects of illegal activity and cover the costs of administering the act.

I hate the idea of the constant erosion of our rights and freedoms by government and its agencies. BUT, I am glad these idiots are paying something....I know it isn't ideal, but they have to pay. Yeah, the government should not be able to take away our stuff for bogus reasons, but what is the alternative in this case.

brads70 · « **Reply #37 on:** December 01, 2010 - 09:09:31 PM »

"but what is the alternative in this case."

I'd say about a 10,000 dollar fine and storage/towing fee's and loose their license for 2-5 years nation wide.( insurance rates will at least go X4!) These clowns obviously can just go by another car tomorrow and do it again? If they lost their licences for 2-5 years then that would give the public a better chance of keeping them off the road, and keep the governments paws off personal property!

If they hurt or killed someone than we already have laws for that ie., assult with a weapon /manslaughter
Like I always teach my kids...two wrongs don't equal a right! This is just wrong of the government! It's a no brainer those two idiots were wrong that's not the issue.

1970 RT Challenger 1970 · « **Reply #38 on:** December 01, 2010 - 11:56:12 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRLZVFaysI

priderocks · « **Reply #39 on:** December 02, 2010 - 12:11:01 AM »

An easy way to put this into perspective is this- what if the cars were rented? Or what if the liens on the cars exceeded their value? What good would confiscating the cars do then? Or maybe the drivers were both filthy rich and wouldn't sweat losing the cars. The only equitable solution is to jail the drivers.

Chryco Psycho · « **Reply #40 on:** December 02, 2010 - 12:29:30 AM »

Welcome to Canaduh ... Guess why I want to leave

scatpack_69 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 02, 2010 - 01:05:58 AM »

I absolutely agree something needs to be done. Hey, I've had my fair share of speeding tickets (nothing anywhere NEAR that fast though...usually in the 10 over range) and there was that one time I raced a brand new Mitsubishi Eclipse back in 2002 in my 57 Chevy down main street when I was a senior in HS. Cops were actually pretty cool, checking the car out and asking if I atleast won. I did

That was before the Fast and the Furious and the HUGE crackdown on street racing. I think I got a whole $50 ticket and that was it.

I'd venture most car guys/gals have their moments, especially when they're younger.

So...a better solution? Hmmm, obviously if this guy has a Ferrari, he can go buy something else. Maybe suspend license for a couple years and somehow freeze his assets? No vehicle purchasing for the duration of suspension? I mean, even that can infringe on our rights, but theres points at which an individual gives up some rights (crime. I have no pity for criminals; the second you take another persons right to life by pulling a trigger is the moment you give up many of your rights, for example)

But the above would have to have some sort of court clerk dispense money from the individuals assets to pay bills (heat/water/mortgage, etc. Car payment...) so along with suspension, fines would also include a fair wage for the clerk? Hell I don't know. There has to be a better result than seizure and SALE of the vehicle...

priderocks · « **Reply #42 on:** December 02, 2010 - 01:11:53 AM »

The problem is that you can't really have a set of rules for the rich and another set for the poor. That's why jail time without confiscation seems to be the only fair way.

grimmey71 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 02, 2010 - 01:43:53 AM »

The seizing of private property is always wrong in my opinion. Violating private property rights whether for drugs, drinking, speeding, or any other accused violation wrong. Right and wrong, legal and illegal, do not always coincide. Because they are(or were)rich does not mean they should be treated any differently. Private property is the Most basic and import of rights. Any infringements need to be very carefully scrutinized, not just violated because of knee jerk reaction decision making.

I have seen police officers make some very bad decisions which my heart goes out to the citizens involved. If you think your definitions of words such as loud, fast, spinning tires, or racing are, you need to realize many people have differing opinions.

Aussie Challenger · « **Reply #44 on:** December 02, 2010 - 04:02:11 AM »

I don't agree that the courts give back any money to cover any monies owing on the car, the driver should have to continue to pay the car off even if it is in storage which was my suggestion. If their insurance denied a claim they still would have to make good out of their own pockets. The whole point is to put in place something which will be a deterrent without infringing their own rights even though they have broken the law.

I received a video showing that for a first offence for drink driving in the Phillipines you get 9 strokes of the cane, there are not too many drink drivers over there, they cannot sit down for at least 2 weeks.