Government did the right thing by taking their rides. In fact, we should copy California and crush these cars for exccessive speeding. That ought to teach the rest of the spoiled ass FOBs a lesson not to play NFS on the public roads.

I could care less about them wrapping themselves around a pole, but don't fucking put other people's lives in potential danger.

#1: lack of brain? Yes I have done that speed in a real car in Europe. Was it really that dangerous? I don't think so.

#2: DO you want some figures? Ferrari 16M can acceralate to 122.7mph in 400m, that's the length of 2/3 blocks. PLUS, I said "IF".

#3: I was saying driving a car at high speed is acceptable, if the driver knows what he/she is doing. Driving at high speed does not equal to SPEEDING. :rolleyes:

Don't worry Mr.FX35, I am not living in Canada. You don't have to be scared about driving on Canadian roads.

^^ Even without the street racing and civil forfeiture legislation there are already sufficient penalties in addition to large fines and driving suspension. If someone gets killed, a street raced can be charged with the criminal charge of "dangerous driving causing death."
Taking away someone's private property while still allowing them the privilege of driving begs rationality.

Here's an interesting article for you talking about the politics involved in enacting the street racing legislation in Ontario.

http://blog.legalaction.ca/does-onta...ter-of-rights/

They should be taking their licenses away for a longer period instead of taking the cars.

No, someone under 35 borrowed a Ferrari. That isn't anything spectacular, no matter how you look at it.

#1 Learn how to READ. I did NOT suggested that you suffer from lack of brain, though now that appears to be the case aplenty. My point was your lack of any morality. So what, if you are going to kill somebody, kill with somebody else' kitchen knife? That makes it right? In any way???

#2 No shit you don't live in Vancouver. IF you did, you'd know that it's impossible to sprint 400M in Downtown vancouver without hitting something in less than 100M. Your "IF" doesn't even relate closely to reality here, so what's the point of IFing???

#3 Ever heard of the word "track"? That's where cars are meant to be driven at hight speed. Driving 200 in a 60 zone, regardless of drivers' skill, is UNACCEPTABLE, PERIOD. Let's see you talk again, when your mom / wife / daughter get rammed by one of the idiots-in-question here.

I am glad you don't live in Canada. We have enough morons on the road already, even without your contribution.

This was clearly posted a few pages back...

Why are people saying this should be challenged in the Supreme Court when it's the Supreme Court that decides if the property should be forfeited in the first place? The RCMP don't make these decisions, politicians or government officials don't make them, a Supreme Court judge does.

Like I said earlier, nobody knows a damn thing about what happened in court, so bitching about it being a stupid law is pointless.


A couple years back I researched various BC laws for a case I was thinking of going to court on (civil lawsuit). When I read the statutes I was going to abandon the case because in plain English it appeared I didn't have a hope in hell of winning. I went to a lawyer anyway (advice of a friend) and found out the relevant section of law I was reading, while 100% correct, was overruled by another completely unrelated section of law that I never even read (or would have thought to read). So I went to court and won my case. I didn't even take a lawyer as the case was a slam dunk for me. The judge decided in my favor after only 10 minutes, much to the astonishment of the other party who had also read the same section of law as me (they quoted it to me early on in our dispute long before going to court) and thought they were in the right.

Just because you read a line or two of law doesn't mean you know how to apply it to every specific situation.

In #1, you said what "if" I kill somone? ok, a fair point, because you used the word "if" just to make a point.

In #2, I used the word "if" to make a point. I wanted to make my point across in the same way as you did.

FOr #3, you misunderstood me. I said, driving a car at high speed (ie. 100km/h) Does not mean it is speeding. (ie. if the speed limit was 110km/h?120km/h?) [Is driving at 100kph(high speed) in a 110kph zone very dangerous?] I have not said anything about driving a car at 200kph is OKAY/ACCEPTABLE in a 60kph zone.

P.S. : Do you really believe in what people said on the internet?

And if the car leaves the road...? Even a Ferrari can lose control and go airborne at 200k - an unseen dip in the road, some debris, some loose gravel in the middle of a curve is all it takes.

Problem is, taking away someone's license doesn't actually STOP him from driving.

This was not a busy roadway full of pedestrians. There were a couple of other people in this park. Based on a balance of probabilities, the seizure of personal property is far in excess of the extent of the offence.

LOL. And forcing a sale of the guy's car while allowing him to keep his license does? Do you think people who who Ferraris and M6s will start taking transit if their car gets sold under them but they still get to hold on to their d/ls?

I agree. If I could afford a Ferrari and it got seized, I wouldn't just buy another Ferrari. Chances are, I could afford an even nicer Ferrari, and would buy that just to make the whole crappy experience a bit nicer.

However, if my license got taken away for a year or two, that would definitely stop me from getting behind a wheel.

Personally I like the whole get tough laws, but the seizing of property just doesn't sit well for me.
Posted via RS Mobile

Actually, I'd like to correct some misconceptions here:

1) An appointed official makes an APPLICATION to the Supreme Court about an asset they wish to forfeit.

2) The Supreme court reviews the file and either issues APPROVAL of the application or refuses to issue the forfeiture order. Approval of the application means that a hearing will be set, not that the asset will be forfeited.

3) A hearing is set by the Supreme Court but the parties are allowed to settle privately outside of court. The reason you haven't found any record of this case is because all civil forfeiture cases in BC has been settled out of court. Essentially, the Crown reached an agreement with the owner of the Ferrari and M6 allowing them to keep a portion of the proceeds of the sale of their vehicle rather than confiscating them outright. So there has NOT been a case yet where the Supreme court has decided that the asset forfeiture is justified.

Can't STOP people from doing much really, unless you lock them up or put physical restraints/restrictions.

And this sort of attitude is exactly WHY the new penalties are so harsh. Once upon a time, most people followed the speed limit, just because that was the law, not because of the penalties imposed. Now the "me me me" mentality has gotten to the point where the law no longer matters; people do whatever they want and as long as nobody else gets hurt, they think everything is fine, regardless of the POTENTIAL for harm they present.

You can only push the boundaries so far, before the pendulum starts to swing back the other way... and now it has. The drastic response wouldn't have been necessary if such a large segment of the population didn't feel it necessary to flaunt the rules in a wild pursuit of their "rights".

True, but forcing someone to watch their six-figure wheels sold out from under them certainly makes a much bolder statement than just taking away a piece of plastic.

what about that ontario video where the cars got crushed? these guys are lucky they got part of the money back no?

i liked that idea of 2-3 year impound on the owners dime....

Yet if they let things like this go UNTIL someone dies, then everyone gets mad and wonders why it took someone getting killed for change to happen. I side with the option that removes people using public roadways in a ridiculous manner, and saves a life.

What bugs me about this situation, is that there are plenty of people out there who have enough money, that they don't care about speeding tickets, don't care about parking tickets.

It's like when I was at Harrods and saw those Saudi princes parking their Lambo's, and they don't care that they got the tickets, because they are filthy rich, that they I'm sure they have a personal assistant to take care of all their issues for them.

I've hiked around that area before. I agree that when you cross a road, even if it's remote enough that you probably will not encounter a car, that you need to pay attention and look both ways. But I don't think it's right to be scared that a ferrari might come screaming around the corner at 200km/h. Do it on a closed track.

if the gov stole my 200k car I'd go down shooting. theft is illegal and I'd defend my property.
the law is only for proceeds of crime. IE if he bought the car with drug money


I'd also argue that speeding is not unlawful as it's not in the criminal code. it's just a regulation

Driving that fast is illegal, too... perhaps pedestrians should be shooting at you if you're doing those speeds?

You'd lose that argument. Speeding IS against the law... just not the Criminal Code. Something doesn't have be in the Criminal Code for it to be illegal.

So this was in the news again yesterday apparently... were they just updating the status of it or what?