[Great68]

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Victoria+police+seize+vehicles+prolific+drunk+driv ers/4721483/story.html


Victoria police seize vehicles of two prolific drunk drivers By KATIE DeROSA, Timescolonist.com May 4, 2011

Victoria police have used B.C.'s Civil Forfeiture Act to seize the vehicles of two prolific drunk drivers, a first in the province.

The legislation is typically used to seize proceeds of crime, such as cars or houses bought with drug money, but the department says its move sets a precedent that people who habitually drink and drive could lose their vehicles.

Steven Henry, a 30-year-old Victoria man, had his 1993 Honda Accord seized after being charged and convicted with impaired driving twice in less than two weeks in April last year, police spokesman Const. Mike Russell said.

Henry was also convicted of impaired driving for an incident last July. The Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles revoked his licence for 10 months.

Police also seized the 1996 Chevrolet Suburban belonging to 63-year-old Saanich resident Anthony Raymond. Raymond was convicted of impaired driving after an incident on November 25, 2009, in which several motorists called 911 about his erratic driving. It happened just two weeks after he was arrested by Saanich police for driving dangerously on the Pat Bay highway.

Raymond had a blood-alcohol level that was three times the legal limit.

Solicitor General Shirley Bond applauded the move, which could set precedents for other police departments.

"It is clear that some drivers refuse to get the message that drinking and driving is against the law," Bond said in a statement. "That's one of the reasons why we have separate, civil forfeiture legislation that specifically targets vehicles and other property used in a way that endangers life and limb."

Police chief Jamie Graham said in a statement that the measure, along with the new immediate roadside prohibition legislation, sends the message that B.C. does not tolerate impaired driving.

Russell said while there is nothing to prevent these drivers from buying another car, "it sends a message that if you continue to do this, we'll continue to take your vehicle."

The tactic will be used to immobilize "those long-term offenders with horrendous driving records," Russell said.

In June, 2009, the province launched proceedings to seize a house under the Civil Forfeiture Act, after Victoria police became frustrated at their repeated calls there regarding drugs and prostitution. That file, which is continuing, was the first time the province had tried to seize a house under the Act.

kderosa@timescolonist.com

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

[Supafly]

This should have been instated a fucking longtime ago.....instead of the excessive speeding.

[TheNewGirl]

I am 100% behind this, about fucking time. It should come with a ban on owning another vehicle too.

[Great68]

What bothers me is that when the Civil forfeiture act was introduced its intent was to target the proceeds of organized crime.

Obviously now it's stretching beyond it's original target, showing that the law was written with such a broad scope that it seems like it can be applied in ANY instance as the police please. The worst thing is that there doesn't even need to be a criminal charge to apply it.

[TheNewGirl]

Great, I see your point. Though personally my issue with that is more about drunk driving convictions lacking due process, rather then cars being taken away from drunk drivers.

[Marco911]

Civil forfeiture law is written broadly enough that they can seize your vehicle even if you're a first time offender and just blow over.

This is how it starts: Have the media publicize they are going after the worst offenders to gain community support, then apply it to less serious offenders.

Take the example of the media publicity of 2 street racers in a Ferrari and M6 who had their car seized while racing during the day on a road with light traffic. Now we have a member here who is having his car seized for speeding excessively in the middle of the night on a hwy, where the risk to the public was very small.

[Leopold Stotch]

i'm glad this shit is happening now, i haven't been affected by a drunk driver, and i hope that i never do.

[firebird79_00]

It should come with a ban on owning another vehicle too.

That i dont agree with, if you lose your license for a year why shouldnt you be able to buy a car and restore or mod it so you can drive it in a year

[Great68]

Civil forfeiture law is written broadly enough that they can seize your vehicle even if you're a first time offender and just blow over.



That, combined with the fact that civil forfeiture is considered a civil matter so the onus requirements are much lower. It's all so bullshit, so open to abuse.

[asahai69]

Im sure you would see a lot less drunk drivers if cabs weren't so fucking expensive..........

[firebird79_00]

yup thats for sure, whos got $50 bucks to blow everytime from cabbing downtown

[CRS]

Im sure you would see a lot less drunk drivers if cabs weren't so fucking expensive..........

yup thats for sure, whos got $50 bucks to blow everytime from cabbing downtown

This just sounds more like poor planning than anything else.

[asahai69]

^ and imagine how many people dont plan well.

[Mr.Money]

yeah those shit bag's deserve their vehicle being taken way for drunk drinking but knowing those fuck's they would probably buy a Beater Car off craigslist for 1k & do it again in their retarded brain..

they should Take their driving license away,but either way they might just drive without one since some drunk people are Retarded

another thing i can say is the Police could be profiting from this too,the government will most likely Put the the Automobiles up for Auction..

[dangonay]

Take the example of the media publicity of 2 street racers in a Ferrari and M6 who had their car seized while racing during the day on a road with light traffic. Now we have a member here who is having his car seized for speeding excessively in the middle of the night on a hwy, where the risk to the public was very small.

In the street race, one of those two cars was going to be seized sooner or later, regardless of speeding/racing. The police took advantage of the situation by trumping it up as a street racing seizure when there was far more involved.

The guy on RS who got his car seized was slammed by RS members for refusing to give information when asked questions about what really happened. He has since disappeared.

If you're going to debate this issue, you should pick cases where you actually know what's going on, and not bits and pieces. Perhaps an actual court case where all the evidence (which would be public information) would be available.

[TheNewGirl]

That i dont agree with, if you lose your license for a year why shouldnt you be able to buy a car and restore or mod it so you can drive it in a year

Because I feel that someone with such poor impulse control that they drink and drive, is more likely to ignore their suspension and drive any way.

So I feel that if someone fucks up to the extreme that they get their car taken away, they should be banned from purchasing another vehicle until such time as their license is reinstated.

------------------

As for cheap cabs there ARE alternatives. Most bars have safe ride programs, there's transit (how late does the skytrain run now?) Or transit + cabs, there's designated drivers. There's LOTS of options that will get you home safely.

[dangonay]

There's one very good side to this people are missing.

There are a lot of lawyers (and even ex policeman) who specialize in helping those charged with drunk driving beat the charge. This is simply because there's a market for it (just like there's a market for injury claim lawyers).

Now that civil forfeiture has been attached to drunk driving those same lawyers will now also be challenging forfeiture along with cases of drunk driving. Which means civil forfeiture will now receive a lot of attention in court, where previously it hadn't. All we have to do is sit and wait for the first big case, and given the number of drunks on the road I see this being challenged very soon.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Marco911]

The guy on RS who got his car seized was slammed by RS members for refusing to give information when asked questions about what really happened. He has since disappeared.

If you're going to debate this issue, you should pick cases where you actually know what's going on, and not bits and pieces. Perhaps an actual court case where all the evidence (which would be public information) would be available.

Regardless, I don't see it as legitimate that the government seizes private property over potential harm to society. Go ahead and seize property to compensate REAL victims if ACTUAL harm has been committed.

[dangonay]

Regardless, I don't see it as legitimate that the government seizes private property over potential harm to society. Go ahead and seize property to compensate REAL victims if ACTUAL harm has been committed.
But you feel it's OK to slam a law because it has potential for abuse.

When someone loses their car for something as simple as speeding, then I'll be screaming that it's unfair as well. Until then I have no problems waiting to see the numbers and types of cases this gets applied to.

[taylor192]

they should Take their driving license away,but either way they might just drive without one since some drunk people are Retarded

License bans don't work, people drive anyways cause the risk of being caught is so low - what are they going to do? take your license away again?

I like the idea of taking their car for multiple drunk driving convictions, yet lets write it in stone: caught 3 times, your car is gone.

[taylor192]

Regardless, I don't see it as legitimate that the government seizes private property over potential harm to society. Go ahead and seize property to compensate REAL victims if ACTUAL harm has been committed.
Government is there to provide safety to society, they should be eliminating potential harms. Your problem is that potential is loosely worded and open to abuse - yet from the examples so far I think the law is being applied very well with no abuse.

[Marco911]

But you feel it's OK to slam a law because it has potential for abuse.

When someone loses their car for something as simple as speeding, then I'll be screaming that it's unfair as well. Until then I have no problems waiting to see the numbers and types of cases this gets applied to.

The law doesn't have a "potential" for abuse. It is being abused. It started out as a law to seize the illicit property of drug dealers who used the property to break criminal law and created actual harm to society. They are now applying this to people who break civil laws that aren't serious enough to be considered by the criminal court system and have questionable harm to society.

Even if a law is written poorly, as this one is, we depend on the checks and balances in our justice system. Someone charged with an offence by the police is presumed innocent until convicted by a court or jury of his peers. In the case of civil forfeiture, the forfeiture can occur even without being charged with a crime. The checks and balances written into the law are carried out by the same department that enforces it, which is a conflict of interest.

[GabAlmighty]

Gotta agree with Marco.

Soon, i'm not gonna be able to do anything without losing something that "supposedly" belongs to me.

[Marco911]

Government is there to provide safety to society, they should be eliminating potential harms. Your problem is that potential is loosely worded and open to abuse - yet from the examples so far I think the law is being applied very well with no abuse.

A lot of German citizens said that when laws were written to confiscate property from the Jews too.

[DasHooch]

That's some straight up national socialism.

[dangonay]

A lot of German citizens said that when laws were written to confiscate property from the Jews too.

Yeah, and we all know Canada is headed down the same road. :rolleyes:

You say the law is being abused and I asked you to provide an example. You haven't been able to.

[Soundy]

yup thats for sure, whos got $50 bucks to blow everytime from cabbing downtown

So, spend $50 less on your booze... like only $350 for drinks instead of $400.

[Soundy]

It started out as a law to seize the illicit property of drug dealers who used the property to break criminal law and created actual harm to society.
Er... DUI over 0.08 *is* a criminal offence under the Criminal Code of Canada... and the vehicle IS the property being used in the commission of that crime... and together with the crime, DO create actual harm to society... arguably FAR MORE harm than organized crime.

[TheNewGirl]

Er... DUI over 0.08 *is* a criminal offence under the Criminal Code of Canada... and the vehicle IS the property being used in the commission of that crime... and together with the crime, DO create actual harm to society... arguably FAR MORE harm than organized crime.

I have to agree with this.

Also they're not confiscating the cars of people who blow over only once, but rather those who are doing so in rapid succession which begs the question if then they're also ignoring their driving suspensions to do so.

[GabAlmighty]

Er... DUI over 0.08 *is* a criminal offence under the Criminal Code of Canada... and the vehicle IS the property being used in the commission of that crime... and together with the crime, DO create actual harm to society... arguably FAR MORE harm than organized crime.

I have to respectfully dissagree with that.

[TheNewGirl]

I think that perspective comes from the notion that while largely, the gangsters are killing each other (with the exception of the tragedy in Burnaby a couple of years ago) while drunk drivers kill completely innocent by-standers.

I find it fairly easy to avoid being around people involved in gangs or that are likely to be the target of a targeted hit. I can easily "opt out" of being involved or at risk of that sort of crime, most of us can. On the other hand the only way to avoid drunk drivers is to never leave your house.

On average 133 people are killed and 3400 injured as a result of drinking and driving every year here in BC, many of them children.

In 2008 we had 140 murders in BC (which at the time was the record ever, down to 118 in 2009, I couldn't find 2010's numbers), about 43 of which were believed to be associated with orginized crime and largely the victims (in those cases), were not so innocent themselves.

43 deaths vs 133 deaths.

The drunk drivers are up on the gangs for harm.

I don't know about you but I actually lost 2 friends in high school, a year a part in drunk driving accidents. I would have given anything for them to have had their cars taken away if it would mean they'd still be here today.

[GabAlmighty]

I think that perspective comes from the notion that while largely, the gangsters are killing each other (with the exception of the tragedy in Burnaby a couple of years ago) while drunk drivers kill completely innocent by-standers.

I don't know about you but I actually lost 2 friends in high school, a year a part in drunk driving accidents. I would have given anything for them to have had their cars taken away if it would mean they'd still be here today.

I've lost a couple people I knew due to drunk driving as well.

What is it that "gangster" deal in? How do they make their money? I know there's more than one way but I think i'm being pretty obvious in the answer i'm looking for.

[RiceIntegraRS]

Why doesnt the city make the skytrains run until like 3-4am or enforce cheaper cab fares? I Guarantee alot of drunk drivers will be using that alternative if that option was out there. Im 100% sure it will at the very least save 1 life but why hasnt the city done this?

Oh thats right.............cause the city would have to pay for it, why would they wanna do that when they can just punish them with hefty fines and vehicle seizures and make money off that. Whats a few human lives in the process right? Well according to TheNewGirl is a 133 lives a year

[Marco911]

Yeah, and we all know Canada is headed down the same road. :rolleyes:

You say the law is being abused and I asked you to provide an example. You haven't been able to.

The famous street racing case involving the Ferrari and M6. The case faced by another poster in this forum where he was charged simply of excessive speeding on an empty hey in the middle of the night. No actual harm done to anyone in either of those examples.

Another thing is the arbitrariness of the judgements. If "victims" need to be compensated, it should be based on consistent standards. If the incidents were the same, why should a person who happens to drive a more expensive car suffer greater financial loss than a person with a cheaper car?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Marco911]

[QUOTE=dangonay;7422799]Yeah, and we all know Canada is headed down the same road. :rolleyes:

When the govt confiscates private property from citizens based on the notion of potential harm to society we are going down the same slippery slope. Nazi propaganda promoted World Jewry as harming German society too.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Marco911]

Er... DUI over 0.08 *is* a criminal offence under the Criminal Code of Canada... and the vehicle IS the property being used in the commission of that crime... and together with the crime, DO create actual harm to society... arguably FAR MORE harm than organized crime.

That's a charge not a conviction. Penalties are only imposed after conviction. Yet your car can be confiscated before you are even convicted.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[dangonay]

In the street race, one of those two cars was going to be seized sooner or later, regardless of speeding/racing. The police took advantage of the situation by trumping it up as a street racing seizure when there was far more involved.

The guy on RS who got his car seized was slammed by RS members for refusing to give information when asked questions about what really happened. He has since disappeared.

The famous street racing case involving the Ferrari and M6. The case faced by another poster in this forum where he was charged simply of excessive speeding on an empty hey in the middle of the night. No actual harm done to anyone in either of those examples.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Did you not read my previous post? Here, I've quoted it again for you. You're using examples where there's far more to the story, and then using that partial information to base judgement?

I'll make it really clear: the police know you've committed child molestation and armed robbery and have evidence for both. Either one puts you away for 10 years. You get offered a choice: go to trial on both or plead to the armed robbery and avoid being labelled a molester. Of course, you take the plea. The police then bring up the armed robbery case was made due to cameras installed at intersections and use the case as an example to show they work and are helping to cut down on crime.

There's a reason the Ferrari and M6 owners settled.

[dangonay]

That's a charge not a conviction. Penalties are only imposed after conviction. Yet your car can be confiscated before you are even convicted.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

As I memtioned, we'll soon see these types of cases in court as all the lawyers currently defending drunk drivers (and there are a LOT of on-going cases) will now have to deal with forfeiture as well. So if the law is unfair, I expect a drunk driver to get their car back and the law "re-written".

You should be thanking the drunk drivers, as they'll likely do more to get this law examined/changed than any "experts" debating on a forum. :)

[Soundy]

When the govt confiscates private property from citizens based on the notion of potential harm to society ...

Hmmm, like illegal firearms?

Yeah, we better put an end to the seizure of illegal firearms too, even if they have't been used to cut up a crowded McDonalds yet.

[Soundy]

Yeah, and we all know Canada is headed down the same road. :rolleyes:

You say the law is being abused and I asked you to provide an example. You haven't been able to.

Marco never provides examples, he just talks out his ass.

[asahai69]

As I memtioned, we'll soon see these types of cases in court as all the lawyers currently defending drunk drivers (and there are a LOT of on-going cases) will now have to deal with forfeiture as well. So if the law is unfair, I expect a drunk driver to get their car back and the law "re-written".

You should be thanking the drunk drivers, as they'll likely do more to get this law examined/changed than any "experts" debating on a forum. :)

yeah. i hear alot of people are just refusing the breathalyzer, lawyering up and taking it to court. i personally know a few people that have done that and they seem very confident that they will win their case.

[taylor192]

yeah. i hear alot of people are just refusing the breathalyzer, lawyering up and taking it to court. i personally know a few people that have done that and they seem very confident that they will win their case.
That's exactly why these new laws come into affect, cause the current laws have no teeth and cannot be easily fixed due to how our legal system works. The new laws have to be vague cause then they cover a wide range, unlike specific laws which can be fought on technicalities.

If douchebags didn't fight cases when they were obviously guilty based on a technicality, we wouldn't need more laws with wider reach. Just check the Police forum for how many people ask how to beat a ticket with a spelling mistake - its douchebags like this that are making our legal system worse.

[asahai69]

I think its also a problem where you can get your car taken away for 3 months. License suspended for 3 months. Massive fines and fees etc etc, or fight it and beat it in court and it will cost you far less money and time. These guys who refuse the breathalizer are fighting it on the grounds that there is no evidence of them being over the limit and there was no trial infront of a judge and/or their peers before they were convicted.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[TheNewGirl]

yeah. i hear alot of people are just refusing the breathalyzer, lawyering up and taking it to court. i personally know a few people that have done that and they seem very confident that they will win their case.

If you refuse a breathalizer you're willingly accepting the full consequences of being drunk and driving. You might as well plead guilty to a DUI. The police officer tells you this when you say you don't want to blow. They tell you several times.

There's 0 benefit to refusing a breathalizer. You're better off blowing and refuting the accuracy of the test.

You should tell your friends NOT TO DRINK AND DRIVE so they don't have this problem.

---------------------

Why doesnt the city make the skytrains run until like 3-4am or enforce cheaper cab fares? I Guarantee alot of drunk drivers will be using that alternative if that option was out there. Im 100% sure it will at the very least save 1 life but why hasnt the city done this?

Oh thats right.............cause the city would have to pay for it, why would they wanna do that when they can just punish them with hefty fines and vehicle seizures and make money off that. Whats a few human lives in the process right? Well according to TheNewGirl is a 133 lives a year


I agree that the skytrain SHOULD run later.

But 'I can't get home cheaply' is NOT a valid excuse for drinking and driving when a plethora of bars and clubs have safe ride programs, when you could have a DD, you could leave early to take the sky train or you could split the 50 bucks for the cab ride home between three or four friends.

If you can afford to be out partying in Vancouver, and you know you're going to be drinking you should plan AHEAD how you're going to get home, not leave it up to your drunk ass to figure it out. This is how mature adults function.

Anything else is the lame ass excuse of an over grown child who doesn't deserve a drivers license.

[RiceIntegraRS]

^the thing is not everyone is a mature adult. Not everyone plans to get smashed when they go out for maybe a drink or 2, sometimes it just happens they get alil carried away. EVERYONE knows the consequences of drunk driving yet people still do it. Its like speeding or anything else u do wrong, people know but decide to disregard the consequences. So if punishment wont help the problem why dont they try finding another way of dealing with it.

I find it funny how the city opened up a safe injection site for the few hundreds of people that are users yet they dont wanna open the skytrain later for the few hundred thousands of people that drink

[TheNewGirl]

^the thing is not everyone is a mature adult. Not everyone plans to get smashed when they go out for maybe a drink or 2, sometimes it just happens they get alil carried away. EVERYONE knows the consequences of drunk driving yet people still do it. Its like speeding or anything else u do wrong, people know but decide to disregard the consequences. So if punishment wont help the problem why dont they try finding another way of dealing with it.

I find it funny how the city opened up a safe injection site for the few hundreds of people that are users yet they dont wanna open the skytrain later for the few hundred thousands of people that drink

Well the big problem with the skytrain is it's not just up to one municipality, but all the cities + translink but I'm sure if people really lobbied hard and made an orginized effort to do so they could get it done. But is anyone doing that? If not, is one of you going to step up and do it? People did that for the safe injection site, in fact there are people going to the supreme court of canada next week to defend it against the Tories attempts to shut it down (though, more people die of drug overdoses then drunk driving a year so it could be argued that it was more needed).

Again I TOTALLY agree the skytrain should run later. I'm not entirely convinced that the people who are incapable of planning a safe route home would take the sky train, they'd probably be all "Oh I couldn't leave my car there", because my experience is people who drink and drive generally seem to want to drink and drive and rarely take the responsible alternatives. It would be great for those of us who do plan ahead though (it really rather sucks to have to leave the bar at 1230 to get home safely).

And you're right not all people are mature adults. But like I said, that why I support removing the licenses of people who do drink and drive and the vehicles of those who chronically do so.

It's not your right to own a car or to drive. You have to prove to be mature enough to handle that responsibility or it should be taken away from you.

[asahai69]

Ok then. What's worse. People chronically driving drunk or someone speeding excessivley on some sort of back road in the boonies. Both seem to get the same punishment.

Btw I don't plan on doing either. Lol
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[ninjatune]

I think its also a problem where you can get your car taken away for 3 months. License suspended for 3 months. Massive fines and fees etc etc, or fight it and beat it in court and it will cost you far less money and time. These guys who refuse the breathalizer are fighting it on the grounds that there is no evidence of them being over the limit and there was no trial infront of a judge and/or their peers before they were convicted.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Actually the $$$ is very similar in the end, if not more to hire a lawyer to fight an impaired driving charge in court. If you knew what you were talking about rather than just spouting stuff out you'd realize that most impaired lawyers tell their clients to provide breath samples and comply because it's much harder to fight a refusal. Refusing to provide a sample is a different charge and carries the exact same penalties, whether criminal or under an administrative driving prohibition.

[Soundy]

But 'I can't get home cheaply' is NOT a valid excuse for drinking and driving when a plethora of bars and clubs have safe ride programs, when you could have a DD, you could leave early to take the sky train or you could split the 50 bucks for the cab ride home between three or four friends.
Hey, even a cab ride to HOPE is cheaper than getting busted! Makes this an even lamer excuse!

If you can afford to be out partying in Vancouver, and you know you're going to be drinking you should plan AHEAD how you're going to get home, not leave it up to your drunk ass to figure it out.
This is how mature adults function.
Well, that eliminates about 80% of the population of RS.

Anything else is the lame ass excuse of an over grown child who doesn't deserve a drivers license.
Ah, there they are!

^the thing is not everyone is a mature adult.
Anything else is the lame ass excuse of an over grown child who doesn't deserve a drivers license.
Anything else is the lame ass excuse of an over grown child who doesn't deserve a drivers license.
Anything else is the lame ass excuse of an over grown child who doesn't deserve a drivers license.
Anything else is the lame ass excuse of an over grown child who doesn't deserve a drivers license.

[asahai69]

Actually the $$$ is very similar in the end, if not more to hire a lawyer to fight an impaired driving charge in court. If you knew what you were talking about rather than just spouting stuff out you'd realize that most impaired lawyers tell their clients to provide breath samples and comply because it's much harder to fight a refusal. Refusing to provide a sample is a different charge and carries the exact same penalties, whether criminal or under an administrative driving prohibition.

Maybe I should have stated this guy is a truck driver and drives for a living. Looking at loosing a lot more money than someone sitting behind a desk 8hours a day
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Soundy]

Maybe I should have stated this guy is a truck driver and drives for a living. Looking at loosing a lot more money than someone sitting behind a desk 8hours a day
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

And, what... he should receive more sympathy for his stupidity because of this?

[asahai69]

Nah I could really care less if he looses his liscense or not. I was just pointing out an instance of some guy fighting these types of laws.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Marco911]

Hmmm, like illegal firearms?

Yeah, we better put an end to the seizure of illegal firearms too, even if they have't been used to cut up a crowded McDonalds yet.

How is the analogy even comparable? You aren't allowed to possess firearms without a license, so of course the government is well within its rights to seize illegal firearms.

[Marco911]

Did you not read my previous post? Here, I've quoted it again for you. You're using examples where there's far more to the story, and then using that partial information to base judgement?

You're not reading my response. I don't think there's ANY circumstance where the govt can go in and seize a private vehicle before there is any proof of actual damage caused.

I don't disagree with the concept of civil damages. If the government/individual sues another individual in civil court for damages, and the court awards a monetary sum, the defendant should be required to pay this amount through traditional methods (cash, garnishing of wages, sale of assets etc). If the defendant does not pay the judgement, then the govt can come in to seize and liquidate an asset. Civil courts award damages for actual damages, not potential damages. Furthermore, they compensate real victims, not people (govt) that sues on behalf of "society."

Protecting society from aggressive drivers who have the *potential* to cause harm is in the scope of the MVA with its listed laws, regs and penalties
You haven't answered how it is fair that the same offense results in different penalties depending whether I was driving a Ferrari or a Civic?




There's a reason the Ferrari and M6 owners settled.

Again, the evidence is clear that the drivers in those examples did not get into any accidents, thus there is no "damages" that should be awarded to anyone. The scope of the MVA is to spell out the laws and penalties for traffic offenses.