And this is why you don' t buy your kid a Lambo . . .

I think the gov should NOT be able to seize any personal property without due process.

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? Had it actually been vehicular manslaughter, I'd feel a bit differently, but it wasn't. I don't think these nitwits deserve to get off scott free. I was mostly objecting to the sentiment in the first reply that the cops should have crushed all the cars right there "in front of them." That's not due process.

Jay, you are focusing on the value of the vehicles instead of the crime, and clearly don't understand what impounding means.

First off, NOBODY PAID ANYTHING. The value of the cars has not been taken from the drivers. They were impounded, not confiscated. That means the value has been frozen for a short period of time. The courts will decide how much of a fine they pay.

Secondly, the impound is EXACTLY fitting to the crime. Let's not think about the value of the cars for a minute. Let's assume a crime was committed with a gun. Would it make any sense for the police to impound another weapon other than the one used in the crime? Of course not.

The car has no value. It makes no difference whether it is a $100K super car or a $500 beater. It's not a car at all- it's the weapon that was used in the crime. If the crime had been committed in a $500 beater, but the police went to the house and impounded a $100K super car because it was worth more than the one in which the crime was committed, you would have a point. All they did was impound the actual weapon (or tool, if you prefer) used to commit the crime. PErfectly suited to the crime, and in accordance with the law.

If you don't like the fact that police have the right to impound cars without "due process", complain to your legislators, not the police. Good luck with that one.

It's evidence. They lock it up like all other evidence. There is no such thing as "due process" when impounding evidence. The due process comes later when the courts are trying to decide whether or not to convict of a crime.

Rocco R16V wrote: I think the gov should NOT be able to seize any personal property without due process.

So, I guess the police can't seize a bloody knife found at the scene of a murder, right?

Learn what due process means.

SVreX wrote: 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?

A misdemeanor isn't a criminal charge. By definition. No criminal record on conviction. That's what I meant by that.

SVreX wrote: Jay, you are focusing on the value of the vehicles instead of the crime, and clearly don't understand what impounding means. First off, NOBODY PAID ANYTHING. The value of the cars has not been taken from the drivers. They were impounded, not confiscated. That means the value has been frozen for a short period of time. The courts will decide how much of a fine they pay.

I know exactly what impounding means. It means you never get the towing and impound fees back that you're forced to pay, regardless of whether or not you're aquitted of all charges. Often it means a numpty tow-truck driver gets to do serious damage to your vehicle by loading it or handling it improperly. It often means that your glove box gets rifled through by the upstanding employees of the respectable impound yard (don't even pretend that never happens!) It means your insurance (which in BC is an arm of the government, let's not even go there) gets to know, instantly, that your car went into impound and they don't care why. More importantly it means you have no recourse whatsoever and it's up to the graces of Friendly Officer Moustache who is now hovering over your window whether it happens to you or not. I don't think the cops should have that kind of power, especially for a traffic violation, especially on hearsay evidence from some bystanders.

SVreX wrote: (...) If you don't like the fact that police have the right to impound cars without "due process", complain to your legislators, not the police. Good luck with that one. It's evidence. They lock it up like all other evidence. There is no such thing as "due process" when impounding evidence. The due process comes later when the courts are trying to decide whether or not to convict of a crime.

That's my point - this is a misdemeanor TRAFFIC VIOLATION. Not a murder. Not even a criminal case. Locking up suspected murder weapons is about a million miles from where this is.

Let me clarify once and for all that MY initial posts in this thread, where I suggested a $100 000+ vehicle seizure was not an appropriate penalty for speeding, were in response to the SECOND post which was essentially "too bad the cops didn't crush their cars right at the side of the road." I know exactly what the real situation is, which is why I stated in my last post that the argument has gone above and beyond that. Yeesh.

hearsay evidence is the key to this story. Police did not witness the incident and had no radar or video proof. PD is probably lucky they made any charges stick.

Jay wrote: That's my point - this is a misdemeanor TRAFFIC VIOLATION. Not a murder. Not even a criminal case. Locking up suspected murder weapons is about a million miles from where this is.

How about this for a better car/weapon analogy:

These guys decide they are going to put up a makeshift firing range in a residential zone. They have fun showing off their cool fancy guns for each other. Residents nearby complain about people firing guns in the area, cops show up. By the time the cops arrive, the guys have cleaned up the firing range (I know it's a stretch and that wouldn't actually happen that quickly; This is all rhetorical). The cops don't find anything except for some really fancy guns, which the guys own legally.

Because of numerous complaints, the cops decide to charge the guys with a noise disturbance or disturbing the peace or something because that's all they really have solid evidence, but they impound the weapons under suspicion of something else and also because they know these guys were doing what they were accused of. Guys will get their guns back in a week after paying fines.

Sure, none of the bullets fired at this illegal firing range ended up flying off and injuring someone the next street over. That doesn't matter. You don't race cars on public roads for the same reason you don't set up a firing range in your back yard. All it takes is one mistake, distraction, or mechanical issue for someone nearby to get injured or killed because there is no safety buffer.

And another thing... Why didn't these dickwads just go to a race track? I can see some poor kid with a civic saying $300 is a lot of money to spend playing with his car for a little while, but these guys don't have any excuse.

Vancouver is in a really bad area for public race tracks. They don't even have a drag strip within two hours as far as I know... There's an active autocross & drift scene at a local airstrip but it's been my experience that street racers DON'T "convert" to autocross.

If it were up to me there would be a full-mile drag strip and a road course available with "run what you brung" public lapping & drags on the weeknights and real races on the weekends. The public days would be just that - arrive at the track, sign a GINORMOUS waiver, go. Lawyers can't touch the track or its participants in any way. No one checks your helmet for a miniscule Snell tag or makes you remove all your subs or declares your car unfit for one made-up reason or another. If you don't feel safe in that environment, rent the track for private sessions during the day. No excuses, problem (almost) solved.

Of course it's not up to me... It's up to politicians who looooooove their revenue and their good buddy-buddies in the police lobby group.

The car/ weapon analogy is iffy in my book. If the vehicle had been used or attempted to purposely strike an individual or another vehicle to inflict harm, then yes.. a weapon. High rate of speed, no.

Rocco R16V wrote: I do know what due process is, apparently you dont, Dumb Fück!

That's really not necessary. Geez.

Rocco R16V wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Rocco R16V wrote: I think the gov should NOT be able to seize any personal property without due process.

So, I guess the police can't seize a bloody knife found at the scene of a murder, right? Learn what due process means.

Were these kids found at the scene of a crime with blood on their cars? the alleged misdemeanor in no way warranted siezing of property. if your neighbor call the cops on you claiming your shooting off guns, you think the police should be able to seize your guns without any evidence that you actually committed a crime? I do know what due process is, apparently you dont, Dumb Fück!

1. The cars were seized legally at the scene of a crime, pending investigation into what crimes were committed, The cops had no idea of the full circumstances at the scene.

2. Absolutely, if you are firing weapons in a neighborhood the cops should be able to seize your weapons. Actual witness accounts are not hearsay, they are direct evidence and many, if not most, convictions are made on this type of evidence. However if you live in the country and have no neighbors and are shooting at vermin on your own 250 acres, the situation changes considerably, so please define your parameters.

3. We do not do that type of thing in here, if you call people names in such an immature manor you will not last long here. Be a man or go play games elsewhere internet tough guy.

fasted58 wrote: The car/ weapon analogy is iffy in my book. If the vehicle had been used or attempted to purposely strike an individual or another vehicle to inflict harm, then yes.. a weapon. High rate of speed, no.

So if I shoot a weapon safely is it not a weapon?

If I use a baseball bat to beat you, is it not a weapon?

If I use a knife to clear a path through a large crowd, what is it? My purpose was only to clear a path.

Now you are seeing some grey.

In reply to Rocco R16V:

Reign in your language FAST. That's not the way it works around here. If you want to act that way, take it elsewhere.

You are accomplishing NOTHING except exhibiting your lack of intelligence, self control, and moral character.

Jay wrote:

SVreX wrote: 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?

A misdemeanor isn't a criminal charge. By definition. No criminal record on conviction. That's what I meant by that.

Incorrect. Check your definitions.

Wiki Definition of Misdemeanor

A misdemeanor is a lesser criminal charge. It's a crime.

Rocco R16V wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Rocco R16V wrote: I think the gov should NOT be able to seize any personal property without due process.

So, I guess the police can't seize a bloody knife found at the scene of a murder, right? Learn what due process means.

Were these kids found at the scene of a crime with blood on their cars? the alleged misdemeanor in no way warranted siezing of property. if your neighbor call the cops on you claiming your shooting off guns, you think the police should be able to seize your guns without any evidence that you actually committed a crime? I do know what due process is, apparently you dont,

The phrases "due process" and "law of the land" are essentially interchangeable. Since legislators have passed laws which grant the authority to police to impound cars for racing, they HAVE in fact received due process, in accordance with the laws of the land.

It really doesn't matter whether or not you happen to like it. It's the law.

There's a pretty simple solution... if you don't want your car impounded, DON'T STREET RACE.

SVreX wrote: Incorrect. Check your definitions. Wiki Definition of Misdemeanor A misdemeanor is a lesser criminal charge. It's a crime.

Okay, so I was using the term wrong (it's a US term anyway and that wiki site only defines its American usage; not applicable in this case. I thought it had the same meaning down there.) The correct Canadian term would be something else. Regardless, it is not a criminal citation in the sense that it's not something that carries a criminal record, like, say, manslaughter would. That was where I was going with that; I think my point stands.

And MY point is that the police have the authority to enforce the law in accordance with the law. When a crime is committed (regardless of the severity), they are authorized LEGALLY to take certain actions. One of those actions includes the right to impound vehicles suspected to have been used in committing a crime.

It makes NO DIFFERENCE that it wasn't manslaughter. It was street racing, and they followed the law.

As I said earlier, if you don't like it, take it up with the legislators who wrote the laws that granted the authority to impound to the police. Don't blame the police.

I think MY point stands.

CRIME

A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state or Congress as a felony or misdemeanor.

A crime is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general sense, includes all offences, but in its more limited sense is confined to felony.

The term offence may be considered as having the same meaning, but is usually understood to be a crime not indictable but punishable, summarily or by the forfeiture of a penalty.

Felony. A felony is a serious crime punishable by at least one year in prison. Some family law felonies include kidnapping and custodial interference (in some states).

People convicted of felonies lose certain rights, such as the right to vote or hold public office. During the term of sentence, the convicted person may also be prohibited from making contracts, marrying, suing or keeping certain professional licenses. Upon release from prison, the convict may also be required to register with the police.

Misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is a crime for which the punishment is usually a fine and/or up to one year in a county jail. Often a crime which is a misdemeanor for the first offense becomes a felony for repeated offenses. All crimes that are not felonies are misdemeanors.

Crimes are defined and punished by statutes and by the common law. Most common law offences are as well known and as precisely ascertained as those which are defined by statutes; yet, from the difficulty of exactly defining and describing every act which ought to be punished, the vital and preserving principle has been adopted; that all immoral acts which tend to the prejudice of the community are punishable by courts of justice.

Crimes are 'mala in se,' or bad in themselves, and these include all offences against the moral law; or they are 'mala prohibita,' bad because prohibited, as being against sound policy which, unless prohibited, would be innocent or indifferent. Crimes may be classed into such as affect:

Jay wrote:

SVreX wrote: Incorrect. Check your definitions. Wiki Definition of Misdemeanor A misdemeanor is a lesser criminal charge. It's a crime.

Okay, so I was using the term wrong (it's a US term anyway and that wiki site only defines its American usage; not applicable in this case. I thought it had the same meaning down there.) The correct Canadian term would be something else. Regardless, it is not a criminal citation in the sense that it's not something that carries a criminal record, like, say, manslaughter would. That was where I was going with that; I think my point stands.

Come on, Jay. You are splitting legal hairs.

If you wanted to compare Canadian jurisprudence to that of the US, you shouldn't have used the term "misdemeanor". Canada doesn't use it. They divide crimes into summary offences and indictable offences.

But they are still all crimes.

Salanis wrote: How about this for a better car/weapon analogy: These guys decide they are going to put up a makeshift firing range in a residential zone. They have fun showing off their cool fancy guns for each other. Residents nearby complain about people firing guns in the area, cops show up. By the time the cops arrive, the guys have cleaned up the firing range (I know it's a stretch and that wouldn't actually happen that quickly; This is all rhetorical). The cops don't find anything except for some really fancy guns, which the guys own legally. Because of numerous complaints, the cops decide to charge the guys with a noise disturbance or disturbing the peace or something because that's all they really have solid evidence, but they impound the weapons under suspicion of something else and also because they know these guys were doing what they were accused of. Guys will get their guns back in a week after paying fines. Sure, none of the bullets fired at this illegal firing range ended up flying off and injuring someone the next street over. That doesn't matter. You don't race cars on public roads for the same reason you don't set up a firing range in your back yard. All it takes is one mistake, distraction, or mechanical issue for someone nearby to get injured or killed because there is no safety buffer.

Yeah, this probably won't win me any friends but I don't think the cops should be allowed to seize those guns in the case you described. If they have a conviction or even a warrant using the witness evidence as testimony, that's a different story, but just after knocking on the door with some hearsay reports? No.

Ignoring the validity of equating a car with a weapon for a minute (I still don't buy that, I can kill people with a lot of other things that aren't weapons too!), I think that example is a bit far fetched - I'm sure it could happen (and possibly even has?) but I really don't think the potential of isolated and rare incidents like that are worth allowing draconian property seizures over. Reacting to the .01% of people who are reckess and stupid enough to do these things should not be how policy is set for the majority.

I really don't think disallowing the seizure of property before a crime has been proven increases the risk to my person much. Certainly not enough to justify the alternative.

Besides, given the severity of actual weapons convictions I think most anyone operating an illegal shooting gallery in their yard would stop pretty quick the first time the cops come knocking around, regardless of whether they impound all their guns for a week while they try to make charges stick.

SVreX wrote: And MY point is that the police have the authority to enforce the law in accordance with the law. When a crime is committed (regardless of the severity), they are authorized LEGALLY to take certain actions. One of those actions includes the right to impound vehicles suspected to have been used in committing a crime. It makes NO DIFFERENCE that it wasn't manslaughter. It was street racing, and they followed the law. As I said earlier, if you don't like it, take it up with the legislators who wrote the laws that granted the authority to impound to the police. Don't blame the police. I think MY point stands.

Okay fine, they acted in accordance with the law. I'm not really arguing that at all (but for this particular police force that's far from a given!) My point is I don't think the law which allows seizure of property before a conviction has been proven is valid or just. The RCMP have a huge lobby organization and they practically write their own laws up here, and the chief is essentially a very powerful unelected politician with no constituency to be responsible for except his/her "own people." I'm not the only one who sees potential for corruption there.

Jay, I hear you. But your core point really doesn't make any sense.

Police collect evidence to prove cases when crimes have been committed BEFORE any crime has ever been proven. Failure to do so would be a total breakdown in the process of law enforcement. It would allow criminals to scrub every crime scene and remove all evidence and NO ONE would EVER be convicted of ANY crimes.

It's just silly.

I know this specific issue is dear to your heart (as a car guy, or perhaps someone who has had unfavorable experiences with law enforcement), but your core logic is flawed.

A crime was committed. Or let's say, a small crime was allegedly committed. They are gathering evidence, in complete accordance with the prescribed laws.

They are doing their job. No problem.

If the guys don't want their $100K super-hoopty rides impounded, they have a choice. Race in a beater (so the impound of the car used in the crime will only be a $500 car), or DON'T STREET RACE.

I am as oppose as anyone to over-reaching law enforcement. But I have no problem with them doing their job.

Jay wrote: (but for this particular police force that's far from a given!)

Perhaps your point has nothing to do with police impounding cars at all, but a matter of personal experience. Do you know something about this particular police force that the rest of us do not?

Kind of looks like you are showing your bias on this one.