^Who are you??

CRS IS an active poster here...and that make me " vewwy vewwy afwaid". :)

Here's your medal.
http://www.faqs.org/photo-dict/photo.../2393medal.jpg

You make some excellent points. I agree 100%, it definitely is scary out there.

To what extent are police "vehicle inspectors"

I guess this just goes back to people getting VIs for whatever the police officer puts down (could be right or wrong).

I was under the impression that not ALL police officers where designated vehicle inspectors (other then obvious stuff EI broken lights/cars parts rust) Talking more, VI kind of stuff.

Reason why I ask is my concern that in the end.. it comes down to the police offers discretion whether or not my vehicle is safe for the road. I mean, do I have any rights in that respect?

Looks just like my lifetime sensitivity award? :)

Here's yours.

http://www.olive-drab.com/images/id_..._m9_700_03.jpg

This is the authority/..

Equipment of motor vehicles
219 (1) A person must not drive or operate a motor vehicle or trailer on a highway or rent a motor vehicle or trailer unless it is equipped in all respects in compliance with this Act and the regulations.

(2) A peace officer

(a) may require a person who carries on the business of renting vehicles or who is the owner or person in charge of a vehicle

(i) to allow the peace officer to inspect a vehicle offered by the person for rental or owned by or in charge of the person, or

(ii) to move a vehicle described in subparagraph (i) to a place designated by the peace officer and to allow the vehicle to be inspected there by the peace officer, or, at the expense of the person required, to present the vehicle for inspection by a person authorized under section 217, and

(b) must remove any inspection certificate of approval affixed to the vehicle if, in the opinion of the peace officer or a person authorized under section 217, the vehicle is unsafe for use on a highway.

(3) An owner of a motor vehicle or trailer must not permit it to be driven or operated on a highway unless it is equipped in all respects in compliance with this Act and the regulations.

No Police officer (inspector) is going to put your car up on a ramp at roadside and check your alignment or now much brake pad you have left. They can easily see if you have burned out lights, that there is legal ground clearance, if your hand brake works., if you have tail light covers...etc. There are practical concerns and their are officer safety concerns. If there is a need to further inspect the vehicle, then it is taken to a Provincial Inspection station where EVERYTHING should be checked. My personal rule of thumb is that if I can find 3 things easily at roadside I will issue a VI # 2...or if there is even 1 major concern, then it gets a #1 and is towed. Hope that explains things a bit more for you?

You didn't even care to respond to the multiple points I made. I am not getting stressed out, seems to me that if my posts are really bothering you and the other cops, you need to take a chill pill.

One point I really want answered is why would you even want to check my trunk for rust?
"still do not even see why a cop would really need to see my trunk to check structural rigidity? Cause most cars rust from the inside out right?? WRONG!! You would only need to get on the ground and look under the vehicle. Or would that be to messy for you officer? I would think it would be easier for you to pop the trunk, instead of getting down and dirty. I have never seen a car rusted so bad in the trunk and be clean beneath the car. I would like to see how you would even justify popping my trunk to check the state of my car. A simple peak under the car would give you a better idea. It would also protect my privacy"

Except, if I was an officer at the roadside alone with the owner of the car, I would not want to be on the ground looking under the car without knowing anything about you (ie. taking my eyes off you while I'm in a vulnerable position). Maybe if I had a partner with me to watch you while I looked underneath, then possibly, I'd do that.

"if my posts are really bothering you and the other cops, you need to take a chill pill."

[QUOTE=stutterr;6483370]You didn't even care to respond to the multiple points I made. I am not getting stressed out, seems to me that if my posts are really bothering you and the other cops, you need to take a chill pill.


Sure. OK, it's obviously all our problem that you are bothering us. Point taken. I'm reaching for a chill pill right now.


Point I really want answered is why would you even want to check my trunk for rust?

If you drove a vehicle that looked like there were problems with rusted body areas, then I would look at all underside areas, including the trunk for rust penetration of the trunk, which would allow exhaust gas to enter your car. I would also look for rusted areas round spring mounts, shock towers etc where my past experience in inspecting rusted vehicles has shown me to be problem areas. IF YOUR CAR DID NOT SHOW SIGNS OF RUST THEN I WOULD NOT INSPECT IT FOR RUST. I would also not check it for lift kits if it was slammed and for cut springs if it was lifted. Basic Police detective work here. I typed this in capitals so you would be able to release and move on, assured that Police would not do "illegal" and unjustified rust checks on your stunningly rust-free car.

On the other hand, a cop may choose to taze stutterr simply because he oozes anti-cop attitude.

I know I would...

Luckily for you, if Great68 was in charge, you could just shoot him.

Reference:
http://www.revscene.net/forums/cops-...ighlight=tazer

Post #41 and first post on that page. :thumbsup:

Tasers???...I want Dolphins with Lasers!!!!!!

Nooo I want frickin' SHARKS with frickin' LASER BEAMS on their frickin' HEADS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw

TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT, an ASP would be the alternative to a taser. NOT a gun..... :rollseyes

Gun = Intended for lethal force. Police shoot to kill. Period. They do not shoot to gain control over a struggling suspect, or to change their mind...they are not going to pop you in the elbow to assist in putting cuffs on you. When that sidearm leaves it's holster...it means they are prepared to double tap some hollow points into you, lights out. They are prepared to kill you in order to permanently remove you as a threat. Whether or not you actual die, that's a different story.

A TASER, ASP, nightstick, maglight, etc. = Intended to be less than lethal. aka. change someones mind real fast. Whether or not it may turn out to be lethal, that's a different story too.

Apples and oranges

PS. To anyone hell bent on arguing against the use of tasers, you've obviously never been hit with a metal pipe before. Because that's pretty much the alternative you are indirectly arguing for in it's place.




*edit* Before anyone brings up Dziekanski, imo that is a case of whether or not the USE of the taser was really justified. Not whether or not tasers as a police tool, are justified.

Honestly I wouldn't be asking police officers about interpreting laws... that's why we have lawyers... Especially when the "laws" were written by lawyers and insurance company employees... No offense to the officers providing informative insight from an officers perspective!

Second point... POLICE should not be deemed vehicle inspectors because as far as I have seen 95% of them don't understand or know the MVA and what is legal and what is not... And most don't know anything about cars...

and The Gang Task Force... what a joke... only legitimizes those Affliction wearing F**K's who are trying to play gangster...

Thats a major problem with cops, they claim to know everything.

I bet they will tell you they took a weekend class, so they are qualified to whatever topic. Or they hung around with a fellow officer who was thoroughly trained in a weekend to determine this or that.

Cops are jacks of all trades, masters of it all. / sarcasm.

I am not asking about interpreting law, but I am always curious to see the way they think and operate.

[QUOTE=zulutango;6483730]Glad to hear you are calming down. Take a deep breath in, and exhale. Repeat.

You seem to think you know everything too.

dont you mean "jack of all trades, master of none"?

but regardless....

sorry for another post, but i just read that thread.. hahaha that's some funny stuff.

i would definately get tasered than get shot. i would even get tasered before i got hit with a metal baton on the arm. let's see... get a broken arm or a few seconds of pain. hmmm..

then the comment about taking a side arm/firearm from an officer's holster during a struggle/tackle. yeah, maybe if the officer has a class/stage 1 holster, but no uniformed officer has something that basic.. not even a class/stage 2.

there are many times when more then one officer would tackle or "take down" one person. for example, the person can be high on crack, and from what I saw groing up near the downtown east side, it's really difficult to take down a person who is delusional and/or can not feel pain during an altercation because of the drugs.

wow. sorry to go off topic

One doesn't need a mechanic's ticket to see if a light is burned out, that there is enough brake fluid in a resevoir or that the body is hanging below the rims or you have bald tyres. This is why the law is written to permit the Police to send the vehicle for a complete inspection to an official Inspection station for further examination.

That's the problem with "sidewalk lawyers." They claim to be even more knowledgeable. ;)