You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Yet you still fail to link a law that proves me wrong. Oh wait, tat's cause you're wrong.
There is not going to be a law that states "The government is forbidden from taking assets from private citizens." Instead, laws are written based on accepted philosophical principles of justice. Private property rights is one of them. I gave you the Wikipedia link.
Quote:
I rightfully call you a dumbass, and next I will demonstrate how uch smarter I am than you.
You do know people in jail still have rights, right?
Please stop watching TV, its made you dumb.
Oh wait, did you just call me a dumbass again? LOL. Go back and read my statement that proves your earlier argument to be illogical.
Quote:
Would you like to me to link the BC civil forfeiture law I took that definition from? I'm not relying on your definitions since you've been proven wrong so often.
As I stated, unless it is to compensate actual victims, it is an abuse of civil rights.
Quote:
If you had bothered to read the law you'd understand, yet since you're still taking TV law you're a misinformed dumbass.
I am not a lawyer, but I clearly know more about law than you do.
Quote:
Wait... you just went from saying I'm wrong about laws and rights in Canada/BC, to admitting there's bad laws? Can you pick a side of the fence rather than be a hypocrite. Thanks in advance.
1) Ownership of private property is a right
2) Forfeiture laws that allow the govt to seize private property, where the asset is not a proceed of crime, or will it be used to compensate victims is a bad law.
Please explain where I contradict myself.
Quote:
Fuck, can you get any more stupid? if all drivers in the convoy are driving legally, then there's no issue.
If you want to keep pretending some of the kids were not speeding with the rest, again go ahead. I'm not that stupid, yet you sure are.
"There is not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges" what part of that statement do you not understand. Even if there was sufficient evidence, I would be for fines and license suspensions. I would not support seizing their cars.
Advertisement
__________________
Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.
Idiot. We're trying to argue the fairness of BC's civil forfeiture law, we're not trying to argue whether the law, based on how it's written, can be applied in this particular case. Based on how generally the law is written, it can be applied to first time drunk drivers, and speeders, so of course it can be applied in this case. I am arguing that it is a BAD law and should be repealed.
Nice backtracking, do you often put your tail between your legs and turn away?
You have too many posts on here arguing the specifics of applying the law, not whether it is fair. I don't think its fair they lose their cars either, yet you have not once asked or debated that.
There is not going to be a law that states "The government is forbidden from taking assets from private citizens." Instead, laws are written based on accepted philosophical principles of justice. Private property rights is one of them. I gave you the Wikipedia link.
and I asked for a Canadian or BC law link. You still have failed to produce one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco911
Oh wait, did you just call me a dumbass again? LOL. Go back and read my statement that proves your earlier argument to be illogical.
I'll continue to call you a dumbass until you post something factual, not silly wikipedia links and drama queen garbage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco911
As I stated, unless it is to compensate actual victims, it is an abuse of civil rights
The law isn't written this way. You've be well advised to read it before continuing your asinine TV law interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco911
I am not a lawyer, but I clearly know more about law than you do.
All that is clear is that you haven't even read the law. FFS, please do your homework before coming in here and looking like a retard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco911
"There is not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges" what part of that statement do you not understand. Even if there was sufficient evidence, I would be for fines and license suspensions. I would not support seizing their cars.
Does everyone stoop reading at this point and just become dumb? The article states right after they are pursuing it civilly.
I do not support seizing their cars, yet I don't support dumbasses playing TV lawyer.
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 980
Thanked 129 Times in 62 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylor192
A fine is supposed to be a deterrent, and a $196 fine to a person driving a $200K car isn't much of a deterrent. Remember, I make a good salary, so I am in essence asking for fines to be higher for myself too, cause $196 isn't much of a deterrent for me either.
Not sure if you have read Immanuel Kant's philosophy, but to many people, it is only fair if a punishment is in a similar magnitude as the crime.
That's why we don't have death penalty or life imprisonment for speeding.
I'm far from a "dumbass" when it comes to the field of law. If you would like to dispute it, feel free to come by our office and see exactly how well we handle the law in our daily practice. Criminal, civil, MVA, Real Estate, and Immigration to list a few are the areas of practice that I've had the privilege of working with for and with clients.
Thanks for clarifying, I'll refrain from calling you a dumbass, yet I still have a problem with what you wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104
Yes, there is a difference between civil and criminal but that is still irrelevant. The same guidelines are used by BC Forfeiture office! They look for 4 or more mitigating factors and then obtain evidence that correlates with those factors being used against them. If there wasn't enough evidence by witnesses to proceed with criminal charges, what makes you think there will be enough to go forth with civil charges. The RCMP have simply recommended that they look into it...It's an alternative to doing nothing at all about the case.
Where have you read or learned that the BC Civil Forfeiture Office requires less evidence to prove the same things that a Criminal case couldn't?
As the name “civil forfeiture” implies, applications are made through the civil law process and the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) applies. Applications are not reliant on criminal charges or
convictions. In B.C., the burden of proof rests on the Director of Civil
Forfeiture and all applications under the Civil Forfeiture Act are made in
B.C. Supreme Court.
Thus I don't know why you think its irrelevant criminal vs civil. The Civil forfeiture office operates in civil court where the burden of proof is different and criminal charges do not have to be laid. If I am wrong, please point out how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104
Civil or Criminal, irrelevant. The law works the same way as far as evidence obtained and evidence used to proceed.
Yes, yet the burden of proof for a judgement is different. 3rd party witnesses may not meet that for a criminal case, yet may for a civil case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104
I'm done with this conversation because you obviously feel that you are more familiar with the law than a person who has studied it all his life. Again, if you want to continue this conversation, read through legal literature and show me your point rather than basing it on things that you GOOGLE.
I'm not a lawyer, all I can do is research my opinions. I'm sorry I lumped you in with all the others who have obviously not researched their opinions.
I am interested in why you think there's no difference between civil and criminal, as this is the crux of anything that happens now.
Not sure if you have read Immanuel Kant's philosophy, but to many people, it is only fair if a punishment is in a similar magnitude as the crime.
That's why we don't have death penalty or life imprisonment for speeding.
I don't find philosophy that interesting
I agree that the death penalty for speeding is ridiculous, yet so is fining the driver of a $2K car and $200K the same amount. To one it is a harsh punishment, to the other it is pocket change and a price paid to continue doing whatever they want.
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 980
Thanked 129 Times in 62 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylor192
I don't find philosophy that interesting
I agree that the death penalty for speeding is ridiculous, yet so is fining the driver of a $2K car and $200K the same amount. To one it is a harsh punishment, to the other it is pocket change and a price paid to continue doing whatever they want.
I'm more of a fan of "points taken from driver's license when caught guilty after a trial". Don't drivers almost get thrown to jail after repeated offenses of driving without a license?
It is too easy to hide one's money and let's face it, the kids may drive expensive cars under daddy's name, and they don't care if the car is taken as daddy can buy many more But they think twice if they have to spend the night in jail.
But seriously, my point getting involved in this discussion, is that we need to reminded, we need to show more respect for the important rule of law, that we are all innocent until proven guilty!
We can't lock up or punish people for the potential crime they may commit.
Otherwise, we are giving way too much power to the police.
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 990
Thanked 795 Times in 196 Posts
Taylor,Parm,Marco sorry but gonna detour from your heated RS-Bar arguments here.
Here's a excerpt from your APV33 booklet on your ICBC insurance policy. If you drive, you should least skim over it. Try to take the calls about the speed estimation as hearsay ok? what about the actions itself?
Division 3 – General Terms and Conditions
3.2 Policy does not apply – Unless otherwise provided, this policy does not apply and
no coverage will be provided in respect of~~~~~***Boring boring skip skip***
~~~~~
(e) a vehicle being used in a contest, show or race, or in advanced or
performance driver training, if
(i) the activity is held or conducted on a track or other location
temporarily or permanently closed to all other vehicle traffi c, and (ii) there exists an element of race or speed test, which means driving at
high speed, and includes passing maneuvers, driving in close
proximity to another vehicle or assessing vehicle limitations in speed,
acceleration, turning or braking,
I'm not surprised no one bothered to look at it from a busine$$ POV.
What if something DID happen? And someone's family got seriously fucked up? I bet you ICBC will not cover a cent to the guilty driver since he violated this agreement. So consider that 1-5 million Third Party Liability GONE. Then what next? Victims are gonna sue of course. But rich asian kid's family has super rich lawyer and will fight the charges to death even though it's clearly the kids fault. Who pays for the extensive time wasted in court? Who pays for the treatment, nursing and rehab? Lost wages and future care?
People like 1exotic should give their heads a shake. But who knows maybe in 20 years down the road some idiot/rich/fob might run over your kids and laugh about how he got a few years in minimum security.
Nice backtracking, do you often put your tail between your legs and turn away?
You have too many posts on here arguing the specifics of applying the law, not whether it is fair. I don't think its fair they lose their cars either, yet you have not once asked or debated that.
You are one confused individual since this is the statement that you made that started my debate with you:
"Since these are kids who can easily afford the fine to just drive with a suspended license, suspending their license alone will not serve the punishment the law intends. Thus setting a standard of forfeiting their vehicles if caught is IMHO "fair" punishment for those who can afford to break the law."
Now you are supporting MY position that the forfeiture laws when applied to the current case, does not meet the principles of fundamental justice and is inherently unfair?
__________________
Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.
and I asked for a Canadian or BC law link. You still have failed to produce one.
I'll continue to call you a dumbass until you post something factual, not silly wikipedia links and drama queen garbage.
It isn't that hard to find since ownership and the right to enjoyment of property dates back to the Magna Carter.
From Section 1 in the Canadian Bill of Rights:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom
Legal Rights
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Quote:
The law isn't written this way. You've be well advised to read it before continuing your asinine TV law interpretation.
Thanks for projecting once again. You have no fucking clue how the principles of fundamental justice works.
Quote:
All that is clear is that you haven't even read the law. FFS, please do your homework before coming in here and looking like a retard.
Does everyone stoop reading at this point and just become dumb? The article states right after they are pursuing it civilly.
I do not support seizing their cars, yet I don't support dumbasses playing TV lawyer.
The fact that you can't see how seizing property where
1) The owner did not commit a crime (only one vehicle was registered to a driver in the incident)
2) There was not sufficient evidence to prove that a serious crime was committed
3) There were no victims in the incident
as a violation of civil rights pretty much speaks for itself.
__________________
Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.
Taylor,Parm,Marco sorry but gonna detour from
What if something DID happen? And someone's family got seriously fucked up? I bet you ICBC will not cover a cent to the guilty driver since he violated this agreement. So consider that 1-5 million Third Party Liability GONE. Then what next? Victims are gonna sue of course. But rich asian kid's family has super rich lawyer and will fight the charges to death even though it's clearly the kids fault. Who pays for the extensive time wasted in court? Who pays for the treatment, nursing and rehab? Lost wages and future care?
.
Usually what happens in this case is that ICBC would settle and pay the victims and sue the driver for the compensation costs if they believe the vehicle was involved in a street race. However, if there isn't evidence of a street race, ICBC would be on the hook.
__________________
Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.
Taylor,Parm,Marco sorry but gonna detour from your heated RS-Bar arguments here.
Here's a excerpt from your APV33 booklet on your ICBC insurance policy. If you drive, you should least skim over it. Try to take the calls about the speed estimation as hearsay ok? what about the actions itself?
Division 3 – General Terms and Conditions
3.2 Policy does not apply – Unless otherwise provided, this policy does not apply and
no coverage will be provided in respect of~~~~~***Boring boring skip skip***
~~~~~
(e) a vehicle being used in a contest, show or race, or in advanced or
performance driver training, if
(i) the activity is held or conducted on a track or other location
temporarily or permanently closed to all other vehicle traffi c, and (ii) there exists an element of race or speed test, which means driving at
high speed, and includes passing maneuvers, driving in close
proximity to another vehicle or assessing vehicle limitations in speed,
acceleration, turning or braking,
I'm not surprised no one bothered to look at it from a busine$$ POV.
What if something DID happen? And someone's family got seriously fucked up? I bet you ICBC will not cover a cent to the guilty driver since he violated this agreement. So consider that 1-5 million Third Party Liability GONE. Then what next? Victims are gonna sue of course. But rich asian kid's family has super rich lawyer and will fight the charges to death even though it's clearly the kids fault. Who pays for the extensive time wasted in court? Who pays for the treatment, nursing and rehab? Lost wages and future care?
People like 1exotic should give their heads a shake. But who knows maybe in 20 years down the road some idiot/rich/fob might run over your kids and laugh about how he got a few years in minimum security.
In your quote above, points (i) and (ii) apply together (see the highlighted word 'and' between the two passages). This means that it only applies if on a track.
I don't think its fair they lose their cars either, yet you have not once asked or debated that.
Why did you spend the last week arguing with anyone who is bored enough to take you seriously, if you didn't agree with the circumstances in the first place?!?
Do you have a clue, or are you so stoned at the end of the day that you've lost track of what side you're on?
You are one confused individual since this is the statement that you made that started my debate with you:
"Since these are kids who can easily afford the fine to just drive with a suspended license, suspending their license alone will not serve the punishment the law intends. Thus setting a standard of forfeiting their vehicles if caught is IMHO "fair" punishment for those who can afford to break the law."
Now you are supporting MY position that the forfeiture laws when applied to the current case, does not meet the principles of fundamental justice and is inherently unfair?
but who are YOU to make such assumption on that ? Correct me if i'm wrong here, but can't you go to jail if you get caught driving while suspended ? So how are you 100% sure they're going to do drive with a suspended license ?
__________________
Proud member of GRAPEGreat Revscene Action Photography Enthusiasts
2008 Infiniti M45X - Y50 (Current) 2000 Honda Prelude SH (Sold) 1995 Dodge Spirit (Sold) 1998 Nissan Maxima SE (Sold) 1996 Honda Prelude SR-V (Sold)
didnt something like this already happen in the past? that rich chinese kid with the yellow porsche killed an australian doctor that was here for vacation while the kid was racing?
he talked his way out of it in the courts by saying he would go to schools and share his experiences with kids to steer them away from street racing, in order to get a lighter sentence, and when the courts approved it, he was like "nah, don't feel it no more too bad - problem? " and the ball was dropped where they basically couldnt enforce it, it was agreed to in good will like a gentlemen's agreement. that's what i remember reading in the province anyway. i don't remember what happened in regards to the insurance portion of it.
It is very simple..., they need proof. They need proof for each individual. They didn't have it but they knew some of the group broke the law. They impounded everyone for a short enough period to make it "inconvenient" for the owners. Impound the cars for a short enough period that they would not go to court and hit them with a fine.
Happens all the time. ANY fine money though should to towards people that have been effected by road crime such as hit and run families or drunk driving victims... I am more concerned about what happens to that money.
This is a case of inconveniencing the drivers since the law really could not be enforced without witnessing the crime.
My wife followed an extremely drunk driver home over the malahat a year ago. This guy spent most of his time in the wrong lane driving very erratic. My two daughters were in the car with my wife. She called 911 to report the driver. The police didn't arrive on the scent for over 30 minutes while my wife was talking with them. The guy gets arrested and taken away. 6 months later my wife is supeona for the case. BUT, two days before the case goes to court we get a call from the prosecutor stating that the case was dropped. The guy driving the car was 72 he has been arrested twice before for DUI including one for bodily harm while driving intoxicated. This guy appealed to the courts that loosing his car and going to jail was too big a hardship on him at his age. The case was thrown out..., That is how fair our legal system is !!!
This is a perfect example of the cops witnessing a crime and doing nothing. This guy should have lost his licence indefinitly and gone to jail as this was his third time getting caught. I certainly won't go out of my way to report anyone as the only one put out in this case was my wife who had to arrange for time off to attend court and to have the pre-meet with prosecution lawyers, then to hear he gave a sob story and got off, that really burns me. Law in BC is a joke. How many elderly drive through malls or through store windows in Victoria? At least one per year. What happens..., nothing. The 80 year old lady that drove through the taxi drivers at Victoria airport killing one and others are still in the hospital over a month later..., no charges are being recommended because she already feels bad about it ..., I worry far more about the elderly in this area than I do the "N's".
I worry more about the 'arbitrary' nature of our laws as well. It is a crap shoot if someone breaks the law and gets caught if they will actually pay for the crime or not. Lawyers these days are good and get paid well, if your a defender. Prosecution..., well not so much. You see the police holding up marijuana plants that they find in remote area's growing and tell us that they just raided and busted a million dollars worth of pot..., my god then they are dumb enough to show us the officers pulling small little weeds out of the ground that are not mature and not worth a cent...,
Why did you spend the last week arguing with anyone who is bored enough to take you seriously, if you didn't agree with the circumstances in the first place?!?
Do you have a clue, or are you so stoned at the end of the day that you've lost track of what side you're on?
Wow.
Cause everyone here is playing TV lawyer, you included. If this thread was simply about whether it was "fair" it wouldn't be this many pages.
It just sucks you hide behind the fail button cause you have a tiny little cock
It isn't that hard to find since ownership and the right to enjoyment of property dates back to the Magna Carter.
From Section 1 in the Canadian Bill of Rights:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom
Legal Rights
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Nice, you finally did some homework, yet can you please provide what I asked rather than redirect to hide how wrong you've been.
Now go find law that states ownership of private property is a right. Good luck, you'll need it.
I'll give you a hint: there's tons of articles on the subject of law and property ownership and how grey it is in Canada. Real estate is probably the easiest to research for specific examples in BC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco911
The fact that you can't see how seizing property where
1) The owner did not commit a crime (only one vehicle was registered to a driver in the incident)
2) There was not sufficient evidence to prove that a serious crime was committed
3) There were no victims in the incident
as a violation of civil rights pretty much speaks for itself.
1) is being debated in the courts right now, specifically related to taking the property of landlords whose tenants run grow-ops. Unfortunately the law
2) civil court will decide how "serious" the crime is.
3) society was victimized by these kids showing how they can blantantly get away with breaking the law, and if you read the Civil Forfeiture Act, that definition is completely valid. Perhaps you should read the law.
All you've done is demonstrate, again, you haven't even read the law.
Now you are supporting MY position that the forfeiture laws when applied to the current case, does not meet the principles of fundamental justice and is inherently unfair?
No, I am capable of separating legality from personal opinion. I personally don't think its fair to take their cars, yet legally I think the law should take their cars to make a point. The laws right now have no "bite", its time they do.
Now go find law that states ownership of private property is a right. Good luck, you'll need it.
Hey sally, you may have fooled others, but to those with some extra IQ points, your ramblings resemble pure insanity.
Very simply, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 8 states...
Quote:
"Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."
What is unreasonable you may ask?
Quote:
The first step in "what is unreasonable grounds" to believe an offense has been committed. First the police must know that the law was broken. This eliminates random checks and routine stops and inspections. The police cannot stop you and search your car or enter your home without knowing a law was broken and then having some real factual link to you and the broken law.
The key here is that they they need a "factual" link, aka, evidence. Eyewitness account can only go so far. They needed real evidence.
Then you go off asking Marco to cite examples. Let me tell you, you're so fucking painful to deal with, that you drive people away from the thread. He's not dumb, just tired of seeing you reply.
Finally, when you say things like this,
Quote:
I personally don't think its fair to take their cars, yet legally I think the law should take their cars to make a point. The laws right now have no "bite", its time they do.
you throw all credibility out the window. Trust me, your credibility needs all the help it can get.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
" and the ball was dropped where they basically couldnt enforce it, it was agreed to in good will like a gentlemen's agreement. that's what i remember reading in the province anyway. i don't remember what happened in regards to the insurance portion of it.
