The government has no right to take your property.

I also saw the news story on channel 11 on thursday, the police officer said the new honda civic was doing 205 km/h when there was tons of snow on the road. what a load of crap, news sell stories for rating, most of the content is all bs.

i am pretty sure there is no way a civic was doing anything close to 200.

It's great that here in Canada we are loosing more and more basic rights for the greater good bs, they literally rape you at airport now in the name of "terrorism"

Your right, the government has no right to seize property if you break the law. If I murder someone, I should be allowed to keep the gun! If they “must” take it away, as a matter of “public safety” they should pay me for it.

And your right! Cops always set up fake news stories about speeding Hondas, just to remind us all how good a job their doing. What are the chances a 20 year old kid with an N and a suspended license would do 200kmp at 3am on the highway, pretty slim I’m sure.

Oh, and don’t worry if a terrorist boards my plane with a bomb, I’ll jump on him and make him say sorry to all the other passengers.

Guns are illegal.

for some reason i can see a lot of $0 dollar income and networth idiots causing a problem with this :(

Driving a fast car down a desserted road at high speeds would be the equivilent to shooting a gun in the middle of no where. The government wouldnt take your gun if you were using it safely, and there is a certain safety factor involved in any kind of speeding. Doing 70 in a school zone is terrible, but doing 140km/h down the no. 1 between Abbotsford and Langley is a walk in the park and by no means endangers anyone if the road is clear.

Yes the government will take your gun if you kill someone, and by all means take my car and throw me in jail if it kills someone, but if someone is operating a vehicle safely and in no way threatening the lives of others, it is completely unfair to take their personal property because of a legal technicality. Talking on a cell phone is more dangerous than excessive speeding in many cases and they arent impounding cars for people texting (they should though.)

As for the whole terrorist topic, its a total joke. By implimenting deliberate screening processes you're merely showing the terrorist where the target is. They understand the process and they will use the false sense of security to exploit the system. Once they know they're using body scanners, they'll shove a couple lbs of C4 up their butts, walk through the scanner and right onto a plane.

A person with deep pockets can go into a trial with a top flight legal team, as many expert witnesses as they need and can have independent lab testing of evidence done. They can afford to hire numerous private investigators to go around and conduct interviews and gather any additional evidence that may that also means it's easier to get off a criminal case. They can even dig into the past of the other parties to try and discredit witnesses or to challenge experts (for example, finding out an expert witness for the Crown has a personal bias against certain people).

The standard to prove a criminal case is higher than a civil case. However, that also means that it's easier to avoid conviction in a criminal case. All you need to do is introduce "reasonable doubt" and you will be found innocent. Those with money can easily afford to create that "doubt" with their "team" of experts.

On the other hand, a poor person who can't afford a lawyer will get stuck with one provided by legal aid. Legal Aid lawyers don't have access to big budgets to conduct detailed investigations. Hell, they couldn't even hire an expert witness to help them out.


The end result is for similar types of cases the conviction rate for the wealthy is far lower than for the poor.


So I find it really funny when people talk about how the law should apply equally for the rich and poor. It should, but the reality is it doesn't. So when someone who's "rich" gets screwed over (like these guys losing their cars) it shouldn't surprise anyone to read so many comments like "it's good for them" or "daddy couldn't buy you out of this problem, could he". It's just backlash for all the other stuff wealthy people seem to get away with that pisses a lot of people off.


Personally this case doesn't bother me. I could care less if they were rich or not. The only thing I'm glad about is someone who was way over the top in terms how badly they were driving got screwed over. In my mind, driving this aggressievly constitutes criminal behaviour. And using your vehicle criminally means it can be forfeited.

Sure the civil rights people will be screaming and yelling over this and bringing up the old "slippery slope" argument, but I don't see it going this way. I think forfeitures will be a very rare event saved only for the most severe of offenders. I doubt even one single person on RS will ever have their car forfeited over the years, even though many will talk like this is going to be a regular event.


If we start seeing a lot of regular speeders losing their cars then I'll change my mind, but at this point I don't see a problem with this. Hell, the guys didn't even go to court to stand up for themselves. What does that tell you?

I can't wait to see if the government try to sell the bikes from those 2 HA guys. :Popcorn

Owning a gun is completely legal.

Having a gun seized after murdering someone was a deliberate hyperbole, because a dangerous driver is equally capable of killing someone with his car as with a gun. There's a comfort zone built into our speed limits, aside from school and park zones, which make speeding, to a degree, safe. Traveling at 140km/p between Langley and Abby in good conditions does fit within that comfort zone, traveling at 200km/p in a Civic while it snows does not.
The driver could easily have lost control and killed himself or a fellow motorist due to his negligence, so he should be punished appropriately. Seizing his car seems appropriate, because creating the significant possibility of killing someone is almost equal to committing the act itself.

I agree with you, but if a digwadd cop was sitting on the side of the highway and you passed him doing 141 in the dry, late at night, alone on the highway, he could take your car for a week and press to have it permanently seized. Not saying it would be, but under the new laws you could atleast kiss your car goodbye for a week and you'd be out atleast 4 digits. I commute from Abby to Surrey 5 days a week and I know first hand that 140+ is extremely common on the highway with experienced commuters. Hardly criminal activity.

Look up search and seizure laws:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What's reported in the media is not necessarily what actually occurred.

My statement was about how the law applies when people get charged with a crime. Rich or poor, it shouldn't matter what charges are brought up against you. I don't really see anything wrong with the rich being able to afford a better defense than the poor. Being rich still does not guarantee being found innocent.

I disagree. In a free society, the government has to follow due process and fair standards no matter how heinous the offense. A bullet to Pickton's head might have been economic justice, but our charter rights guarantee he gets his day in court. If the govt wants to go after the Ferrari and M6, I would expect them to be fair and go after EVERY vehicle whose drivers are charged with the same offenses as they did.

That is not justice if the govt only goes after expensive cars, or the most extreme of cases. Fact of the matter, if you break the same law, the charges and penalties you face should be the same as anyone else. The govt should not be in the business of suing in civil court and picking and choosing who they go after. That is the slippery slope.

They negotiated a settlement, which they probably felt gave them the best economic outcome. That is why they got to keep a portion of the sales proceeds. If I had a Honda Civic, and the govt was coming after that, you'd better believe I would fight it.

Some things you might not know:

The people who work for the civil forfeiture office get compensated from the assets that they seize. The rest of the money can be used to compensate "victims" or public safety programs. Do you think it is worth their time and legal resources to seize someone's crappy car?

Then that is systemic discrimination, and the entire system is flawed.

A law where financial penalties are based on income would never pass if it did not account for this scenario, there would need to be a minimum penalty that escalates with the perpetrators income. A ticket could have an $80 minimum, with an additional 1% of net annual income added to that.

I'm familiar with search and seizure laws, if you read the post above mine you will understand what I was responding to in my post. In a sarcastic way, I was saying the government has a right to seize property if its owner uses it to endanger others.


I agree, but theres a grain of truth to every story even if it naturally grows each time it's retold. A media organization would not risk its credibility publishing a completely falsified story and the police have no incentive to falsify this one.

god i hate icbc so much

How do you know they won't go after every driver/vehicle who drives as aggressively as these guys? You're making a huge assumption that the government is only going to seize cars from wealthy people and ignore people who drive less expensive cars. Especially since this is the first case of its kind and there's no track record to go on. This is why your argument is flawed - you're arguing about what might happen, not what actually is happening.



Still, the fact is they settled. Which means they don't give a damn about civil rights or standing up for what they believe in. They made a decision that cost them the least amount of money, which means they only think about themselves. You want to support someone like this who had a chance to challenge a law that's unjust and simply took it up the ass 'cuz that was the least painful route for them?

I hate people who bitch about things that happen to them and don't do anything about it. How often has someone come on RS and complained about something that happened to them, people tell them how to correct it (file a lawsuit or report to the police) and they don't even bother. If you won't stand up for yourself then you deserve whatever happens to you, IMO.

False. The law has been amended since 2008 such that they can pursue forfeiture of cars used for "street racing." The fact that this is the first case of its kind tells me that they only go after cars that are worth seizing since I'm sure there have been others that have been charged with excessive speeding and street racing since the law came into effect. Don't take my word for it? Let's see what criteria the Director uses in deciding which assets to go after:

When deciding whether or not to initiate civil forfeiture proceedings,
the CFO assesses each referred file based on a set of principles:
• The protection of the public interest;
• Compliance with privacy and information-sharing laws;
• The nature of the alleged criminal or other unlawful activity;
• The potential return on investment; and,
• The probability of a successful outcome.

As you can see, the penalties are not being applied evenly as they have a preference to go after those where they can achieve a "return on investment." Clearly this law is discriminatory if the government doesn't apply it evenly to all violators.

Whether people fight or settle is a personal decision. This has no bearing on the argument on whether this law violates the principles of civil rights and charter rights. You have thus far argued that you are ok with the law because the offenders in question "deserved" the punishment. That's the type of logic and thinking that allowed German citizens to rationalize Nazi behavior when laws were put into place to strip Jews of their assets. No citizen living in a free society should take an infringement on their rights by the government lightly.

Marco, you are so utterly full of shit.

That is all.

Soundy, I am clearly a whole lot smarter than you.
If you have nothing of substance to contribute, run along and disappear into the quiet internet night. ;)

Actually Macro is right most of the time. If you actually take political science, criminology, law, and philosophy into perspective, it is exactly what you get. All i got to say is if you guys think canada and the Usa are a free and democratic society then you are seriously mistaken. Just look at all the laws and acts that came into effect in BC for the year 2010. HST, Drunk Driving, Speeding and it came with zero public consultation. We are getting systematically screwed over by the government. You guys need to wake up and look at the bigger picture outside of some rich kids that lost some nice cars.

Yes... clearly.

Pot... kettle. You've expended about 20,000 words so far in this thread, contributing fuck-all except hot air.

[quote=Soundy;7207541]Yes... clearly.

Hahahah. Is that your evidence? You have zero evidence that any of my claims are fake. People have called me out here and have lost time and time again.

Aww, I guess you're just a little sensitive because I win at life?

wow.. this thread is huge..
So from whats iv quickly tried to pick up..

The guy was caught racing with another car.. going 200 and almost hits a lady?..

He punishment is
- They take his car and sell it and give him a 15 day license suspended.. ?

I dont get why they dont just ban his ass for life .. License taken away.. I mean there should be no tolerance for street racing..

Also selling his shit is a bit bunk .. seems more like a cash grab then anything.

Isn't that the whole point of the criminal charge, and this whole scenario?
They might have killed someone while racing. That's what the argument for seizure is focusing on, the fact that their actions were dangerous and might have hurt someone. Even though the truth was that no one was hurt in this situation. Other than the car owners.

^ If the government used the argument "you might have killed someone, therefore we're taking your car" then I'd agree with you.

But how do we know what portion of the law would have been used? As I already said, this thread is full of non-lawyers taking specific snippets of law and making assumptions about how the law would be applied. These guys never went to court, so making claims that the only reason they had their cars taken was because of something they "might" do or because they were "expensive" cars is pointless.

People always complain about the media only reporting specific facts of a story to make it more sensational or to twist the story. How is that any different from people in this thread arguing about specific clauses of law and expanding on those specific points to draw their own conclusions?

Marco. Come on, bringing up the Nazis and Jews? Stretching things a little, aren't we?

BTW, when you say "The potential return on investment", why do you make the assumption this means they will only go after the wealthy? When I think of return on investment I think of expenses vs income. Expenses being the time & money to go to court and the income being the return from assets. You are only talking about the income side of things, not the expenses. If the police have concrete evidence of someone doing something wrong, then they will go after them, even if the car is only worth $20K. I highly doubt that these guys would have lost their cars based on the poor testimony of a person walking up Cypress (their lawyers would have a field day with some lady trying to explain how she was able to calculate the vehicle speed). It was their bad luck an officer was there and witnessed first hand how they were driving. Therefore the expense side of the equation was small, making this a good return on investment.