Jay wrote: Sorry, I don't think $100 000+ is a fitting punishment for speeding, even for rich twerps. I could go 100 over the limit in any car I own (and probably not crash it, but I digress.) Should the cops be able to take my house for doing that?
If it was 10 kids in crapcan Hondas we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is a "How dare those rich bastards" thread.
The punishment should fit the crime. They have a law for reckless driving and they enforced it. Done.
Jay wrote: Sorry, I don't think $100 000+ is a fitting punishment for speeding, even for rich twerps. I could go 100 over the limit in any car I own (and probably not crash it, but I digress.) Should the cops be able to take my house for doing that?
I agree.
Kids street racing in Hondas get their cars impounded and crushed (not always, but it happens). If the same legal standard is applied, I see no problem with these kids receiving the same consequence to their Lambos and Ferraris.
I'm fine with the cars being impounded too. If you were charged with a crime, and a possession of your's is suspected of being used to commit the crime the police aren't going to let you hold onto it.
Jay wrote: Sorry, I don't think $100 000+ is a fitting punishment for speeding, even for rich twerps. I could go 100 over the limit in any car I own (and probably not crash it, but I digress.) Should the cops be able to take my house for doing that?
No, the cops shouldn't be able to take your house if you did that. But it's reasonable that they can take your car if you are using it in a manner that endangers others. These kids aren't having their houses taken away. They're having their cars taken away, and that is probably about as bad a punishment to them as loosing your car would be to you.
I wonder if the two kids with 2010 Gallardos make fun of the poor kid with the 2009 model year...
flountown wrote: I wonder if the two kids with 2010 Gallardos make fun of the poor kid with the 2009 model year...
Clearly. Poser.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:Jay wrote: Sorry, I don't think $100 000+ is a fitting punishment for speeding, even for rich twerps. I could go 100 over the limit in any car I own (and probably not crash it, but I digress.) Should the cops be able to take my house for doing that?I agree.
When you drive your house at 125 mph in a dangerous manner, you bet they should
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:Jay wrote: Sorry, I don't think $100 000+ is a fitting punishment for speeding, even for rich twerps. I could go 100 over the limit in any car I own (and probably not crash it, but I digress.) Should the cops be able to take my house for doing that?If it was 10 kids in crapcan Hondas we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is a "How dare those rich bastards" thread. The punishment should fit the crime. They have a law for reckless driving and they enforced it. Done.
Nope, I believe that they should stand the risk of having the car impounded in such circumstances, whether it be a 85 Corolla or a 2011 Gumpert.
Pretty sure you would lose any weapon used in the commission of an offense. Surely a 125mph supercar in a public road is a weapon.
Besides it is the law, you break it at your peril. Do the crime, do the time.
"That's why we've charged them with driving without due consideration for the public."
Because authorities could not prove anything else. Not sure how 'driving without due consideration for the public' would compare to US states laws... reckless endangerment, reckless driving? But a $196 fine sure sounds like a misdemeanor.
Not worthy of vehicle confiscation in my state.
Cue NASCAR France video on the streets of Daytona in 3...2...1..., Oh wait, no witness.
They're the same damn cars and kids I saw every night at the Starbucks next to where I lived in NJ and driving up and down the street near it.
They have money but they just buy whatever their friend just got. Why haven't I seen any Konieggseggs, Pagani Zondas, or Diablos? (Now THAT was a Lamborghini!)
There are five GTRs, a ton of Gallardos in bright orange, and then this one guy with a Mercedes AMG something-or-other who just drives around the Starbucks / shopping center parking lot and REVS THE E36 M3 out of his engine.
Give me some real money and I'll go buy something cool (like a hanger full of Miatas).
Everybody knows that Lamborghini doesn't make race cars.
confuZion3 wrote: They're the same damn cars and kids I saw every night at the Starbucks next to where I lived in NJ and driving up and down the street near it. They have money but they just buy whatever their friend just got. Why haven't I seen any Konieggseggs, Pagani Zondas, or Diablos? (Now THAT was a Lamborghini!)
Modern Lamborghinis look almost practical. When I think Lamborghini, I still think Countach.
Salanis wrote: Kids street racing in Hondas get their cars impounded and crushed (not always, but it happens). If the same legal standard is applied, I see no problem with these kids receiving the same consequence to their Lambos and Ferraris.
First thing I thought. In the late-90's/early-2000's, the internet was full of images of impounded/crushed Civics that were grabbed for street racing.
As for obscenely spoiled rich kids, I have nothing but negative feelings toward them. Let the consequences of their entitled lifestyles do them in ASAP.
Salanis wrote: These kids aren't having their houses taken away.
Exactly, what a silly thing to say. Why bring something into this argument that has no relationship to it? "They were street racing. It's the moon's fault!"
I'm pretty sure it works the same way in the states, but houses can be condemmed via bylaws in Canada without criminal charges being laid iirc. So drug/gang house being used illegally? Boom, the city itself can condemn the property, and then the police can enforce that without any charges being filed. Sweet :D
How is that 'silly'? By my reckoning, my house is worth $130 000~$150 000. DuPont Registry list used Gallardos from $89 000 to $260 000. Government seizes car worth $150 000 - government seizes house worth $150 000. Sounds like a pretty comparable penalty to me.
(It's a way better comparison than likening driving a car badly to purposefully firing a gun into someone's house. But never mind that...)
Like I said, I could (but I won't) go out right now and drive 200 km/h with any of the cars out in the driveway. I don't have a Gallardo, but I do have a house. So...
We seem to have a rather large difference of opinion here. I don't think it's "Sweet :D" AT ALL that the cops or the government can take your property without any charges being filed. That's a HELL of a long way from a criminal conviction in a court.
I guess that's me though, I'd rather not relinquish that kind of control over my life so that I might be "protected" by the state from a few imaginary or overblown crime scenarios.
In reply to Jay:
I don't think "Sweet". I think it makes sense if the item is used to commit a crime. How I feel will depend on what happens. If they are found guilty of a crime under due process of law, and that warrants them not getting back the item they used to commit it, makes sense. However, if they are found not guilty, they aught to get back their possessions that were seized.
No, it's not analogous to your house, even though the price is comparable. It is exactly what it is: they took the cars used. If I have a $5k Miata and a $50k BMW, and go street racing the Miata, they aren't going to take the BMW. Similarly, if I have a $15k car and a $150k house, they aren't going to take the house. If I have a $150k house and a $500k Zonda, and I street race the Zonda, I'm going to lose the Zonda, not the house.
Even if convicted, it's absurd, in my opinion, for them to take your car. The "used for a crime" thing doesn't hold water for me. Some cop having a bad day doesn't like my funny looking old car. I, in a moment of weakness, and doing 51 in a 30. Cop decides I'm "racing" and pulls me over.
Look, it's unlikely that the above would result in my car being taken away or crushed. But it's possible and legal. That's more power than I care to give to the government. There should be a reasonable penalty for racing, or speeding, or whatever else. But to say a middle-aged guy speeding in a Ford gets a $70 ticket, but a 19 year old in a Ferrari gets a $150,000 car taken away (I don't mean impounded- I'm talking about the instances where it's legal to take the car forever) is ridiculously uneven application of law.
Actually, the whole "They're taking their $100k cars just for suspicion of street racing!" is absurd. If you read the article, that isn't the case at all.
"Each driver will be charged with Driving without Reasonable Consideration and receive a violation ticket with a specified penalty of $196. Additionally, these drivers will be responsible for all associated towing and storage charges," according to the RCMP press release. ... If police were able to charge the 13 drivers with more severe offenses, they could have faced forfeiture of their vehicles, according to a Vancouver Sun report.
So... they are responsible for a $200 fine and costs to release the cars from impound. If the police had evidence to prove the boys used those cars to commit a more serious crime, they could potentially have to forfeit their vehicles.
Makes sense to me.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Even if convicted, it's absurd, in my opinion, for them to take your car. The "used for a crime" thing doesn't hold water for me. Some cop having a bad day doesn't like my funny looking old car. I, in a moment of weakness, and doing 51 in a 30. Cop decides I'm "racing" and pulls me over. Look, it's unlikely that the above would result in my car being taken away or crushed. But it's *possible* and *legal*. That's more power than I care to give to the government. There should be a reasonable penalty for racing, or speeding, or whatever else. But to say a middle-aged guy speeding in a Ford gets a $70 ticket, but a 19 year old in a Ferrari gets a $150,000 car taken away (I don't mean impounded- I'm talking about the instances where it's legal to take the car forever) is ridiculously uneven application of law.
This.
I don't think crushing a car is a fair punishment. I think jail time is more fair. Or even maybe selling the car. I would love to buy a police auction Lambo. 
93EXCivic wrote: I don't think crushing a car is a fair punishment. I think jail time is more fair. Or even maybe selling the car. I would love to buy a police auction Lambo.
I would too. Not going to happen around here though. Usually the Highway Patrol gets ahold of the Lambos and Ferraris, paints them up in black and white and puts them into service.
(Cam, the "sweet!" line was directly aimed at HiTempGuy's post above me. I'm definitely not assuming the rest of you who disagree with me share his, er, 'interesting' take on the matter.)
Yeah, the argument has gone a bit farther than what actually occurred. The original story said the cops impounded them for a week, at the roadside, based on the hearsay of some eyewitnesses. I don't think roadside vehicle seizures should be legal for a traffic violation under ANY circumstances (since nothing has gone to court!), but I agree it's nowhere near the same thing as seizing the kids' Lambos forever and auctioning them or crushing them.
Really there is no "crime" here, there were no injuries at all. All they've been charged with is a misdemeanour traffic violation. I agree those kids were being nitwits but there is WAY too much potential for abuse if you let cops start taking fines and impounding vehicles at the side of the road.
I would be awfully pissed if some cop seized my 951 for a week (making me responsible for towing and storage fees no matter what happens in court!) because I passed some cranky lady going 100 on an 80 road and she called them in on me. "Officer! Him there in that PORSH - he was going way over the limit and he SCARED MY CHILDRENS! Take his PORSH AWAY!" Yeah, I'll bet that never happens to anyone...
Keep in mind the RCMP aren't exactly known for showing restraint and following the letter of the law in these sorts of situations. I'm rather surprised at how much they held back in this case. I guess they figured rich brats would have rich lawyers and they couldn't make further charges stick.
Jay wrote: Really there is no "crime" here, there were no injuries at all. All they've been charged with is a misdemeanour traffic violation. I agree those kids were being nitwits but there is WAY too much potential for abuse if you let cops start taking fines and impounding vehicles at the side of the road.
I agree, people do stupid things in all kinds of cars everyday that the cops dont see, I dont see why just because they are people in expensive cars the cops should be impounding their cars when they didn't actually see anything happen. I have seen people do plenty of stupid things that if things had gone a little differently would have caused nasty accidents (a ford truck making a pass on a 2 lane road and driving between 2 semi trucks passing in opposite directions, a girl in a civic running a red light at 70 mph and almost hitting the car next to me, etc) but I wouldn't have expected the police to do anything if I had called them.
Grr, i don't get the formatting on this board sometimes, I typed a whole reply and it wont show up properly.
You need to get rid of the Tab or couple spaces at the beginning. That screwed it up.
Travis_K wrote: I agree, people do stupid things in all kinds of cars everyday that the cops dont see, I dont see why just because they are people in expensive cars the cops should be impounding their cars when they didn't actually see anything happen. I have seen people do plenty of stupid things that if things had gone a little differently would have caused nasty accidents (a ford truck making a pass on a 2 lane road and driving between 2 semi trucks passing in opposite directions, a girl in a civic running a red light at 70 mph and almost hitting the car next to me, etc) but I wouldn't have expected the police to do anything if I had called them.
I think because, as someone said earlier, that group of kids has been known for being a nuisance, disturbance, and menace to the community, and people have gotten fed up with it.
Jay wrote: Really there is no "crime" here, there were no injuries at all. All they've been charged with is a misdemeanour traffic violation. I agree those kids were being nitwits but there is WAY too much potential for abuse if you let cops start taking fines and impounding vehicles at the side of the road.
This is incorrect. No felony crime was committed, but a misdemeanor crime WAS committed.
You didn't actually mean to say that no crime was committed because there were no injuries, did you?
You'll need to log in to post.
