I see that we want the constitution of rights and freedoms when it benefits us.
I post this only because Chromius posted this article. And I think Chromius knows what Im hinting at by writing this..
Quote:
Originally Posted by chromius
Sorry, I don't see the relation between a cop asking for a search, and a cop impounding your property without due process. Two different situations as far as I'm concerned. Now if in the other thread the cops were seizing peoples property or houses without a warrant, then there would be issue. But in the other thread the people are not being denied any rights. They have the right to say no, and they're not being deprived of their property.
well matter of factly the cops are 'just doing their jobs' and actually 'following the law' in both cases.still doesn't make it right in either case. to bad you don't see the relation, maybe one day..
and just to add 'info', in quebec its even worse! they got 'excessive speeding', but no jail time attachment. they did create some dangerous offender type status for the convicted though! yeah it hangs on your Driving Record for 10years and if you are caught again its double penalization and seizure of car! 3rd time its triple!! thats harsh, considering some that will get caught in this have a proven safe driving record of over a decade of driving, etc..wtf! no challenges yet that i know of either.
oh and from 'that' other thread..again - people go missing everyweek -alot go unsolved! whats to stop them from starting to routinely ask if they can SEARCH your place, have a look about? probably about as much as it did from them labeling everyone 50 over a 'racer' just for the $
this is also very different from cops canvassing an area & just Asking people if they Know anything about the lost person (not everybody watches the news) - but no what theyre saying is: for no reason other then your location we'd like to enter your residence & verify through Inspection that your not a MURDERING RAPIST.
and if you say no You will more then certainly be asked: why got something to hide. so they will Escalate it, while trying to coerce/gently force compliance from you. anybody get this? refusal for whatever reason (possibly not even being home) will likely insite annimosity from them
1) The militaristic “war on crime” orientation that permeates most modern police services creates an “us against them” mentality among police officers. To the police officer every citizen becomes a potential “enemy” or “symbolic assailant.” This ideology can create tensions with minority communities – particularly in departments with few minority officers. These tensions are further aggravated when officers do not live in the same communities that they police. http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.o...cotwortley.pdf/
well matter of factly the cops are 'just doing their jobs' and actually 'following the law' in both cases.still doesn't make it right in either case. to bad you don't see the relation, maybe one day..
I never said they weren't. I don't blame the cops for this law, they are in fact just doing their jobs. I blame the politicians/government/fiberals for the law.
The problem with people in general is that they dont see the correlation between this and having your house searched without following the proper laws and procedures.
IF youre okay with them searching your house without a warrant, then you should have NO REASON to complain when your car gets stripped away from you, and you land your self a huge fine for speeding. After all, both arguments here are backwards compatible.
You are helping the police do their job with more power.
The problem with people in general is that they dont see the correlation between this and having your house searched without following the proper laws and procedures.
IF youre okay with them searching your house without a warrant, then you should have NO REASON to complain when your car gets stripped away from you, and you land your self a huge fine for speeding. After all, both arguments here are backwards compatible.
You are helping the police do their job with more power.
The only way the two scenario's would be remotely similar would be if the police were to ASK me if they can impound my car, or if they were entering people's houses without a warrant, and without asking, and then taking their furniture. But that's not the case, so the two are not related.
The only way the two scenario's would be remotely similar would be if the police were to ASK me if they can impound my car, or if they were entering people's houses without a warrant, and without asking, and then taking their furniture. But that's not the case, so the two are not related.
Dude, you're talking to a wall. A really thick wall.
Judge West noted in his ruling that the stunt driving provisions were passed unanimously by the Ontario legislature in what was billed as a law targeting street racing. The specific "regulations" however, which defined speeding as stunt driving and have now been found to be unconstitutional, were drawn up at a later date by the Ontario government.
MOTHER****ERS. How can they do this!? That's like making a law that they can ask permission to enter a home to do a search, and they change it to, well we won't ask we'll just enter. XD
__________________
1998 BMW 328is - summer
1994 BMW 325i - daily
1992 BMW 325i - totaled
1988 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.3-8V - sold
Dude, you're talking to a wall. A really thick wall.
haha okay, because we have difference of opinions of what their actions mean for our future.... Its good to throw insults though Fel, good job bro, you really are quite a mature, grown adult.
haha okay, because we have difference of opinions of what their actions mean for our future.... Its good to throw insults though Fel, good job bro, you really are quite a mature, grown adult.
I know Fel well, and even though him and I stand on opposite ends of the pole on this issue, I don't think he is insulting anyone.
I can understand how one can get frustrated when his point is not well received though, so lets not bitch and whine. There are two sides to evry coin so lets try and be understanding.
Ultimately, if a cop came to my door and asked to look around in my place, guilty or not, my answer will be the same, "No". If he comes back with a warrant, then I don't have a lot of options.
Some people are optimists and some pessimists, when it comes to the government and cops, how sneaky and sleazy they can be and how quickly we can be robbed of social fundamentals, I am a pessimist.
__________________ www.enthusiastauto.caContact if you are looking for a car
His--2000 BMW ///M5 .:Jet Black on Black:. Individual - Style 65 Wheels; 9.5" Square Set up;275 Tires;10mm/3mm Spacers; Black Kidneys;Muffler Delete; 3.5" Dual Tips; Beast Power Sway Brackets; "Dinan" Ducts; E60 SSK; BC Coils
Hers--2000 BMW ///M5 .:Avus Blue on Grey/Black:. '01 Exterior Upgrades; E60 SSK
I know Fel well, and even though him and I stand on opposite ends of the pole on this issue, I don't think he is insulting anyone.
I can understand how one can get frustrated when his point is not well received though, so lets not bitch and whine. There are two sides to evry coin so lets try and be understanding.
Ultimately, if a cop came to my door and asked to look around in my place, guilty or not, my answer will be the same, "No". If he comes back with a warrant, then I don't have a lot of options.
Some people are optimists and some pessimists, when it comes to the government and cops, how sneaky and sleazy they can be and how quickly we can be robbed of social fundamentals, I am a pessimist.
And yes if presented with a warrant you'd would have NO options..so for a detective to even mention in the media that 'we may try to get a warrant for those that refuse the search' /know their rights - should be 'unsettling' and leave a foul taste in the mouth. but alot of people don't understand or have even read the charter. most of their knowledge would be based on u.s tv and their u.s constitution, thankfully the 2 are compatible in alot of ways!
here (people) watch this judge, and even though its a u.s judge see if you can see the 'Relevance' of this discussion to warrantlessly seizing ur car and our 'safety'
i'll also post this guy again and his valid points
__________________
Last edited by bmdbley'sBro; 11-24-2009 at 08:27 PM.
haha okay, because we have difference of opinions of what their actions mean for our future.... Its good to throw insults though Fel, good job bro, you really are quite a mature, grown adult.
The bottom line is that the two are completely separate issues.
The fact that you are trying hard to find parallels between the two just make me roll my eyes. It's not a difference of opinion. I believe that what they are doing with seizure of vehicles and the fact that an absolute liability case carries jail time are not right... but that has everything to do with this "stunting" law and what this judge is now trying to prove.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the other case. I'm sorry you feel that they do, but I obviously won't be able to convince you otherwise. That would be like me trying to talk to a wall.
Don't lose sight of the issue here, either. Both of these judges have brought up a specific aspect that they find unconstitutional. It doesn't have anything to do with seizure of your vehicle. It has everything to do with the fact that this is an absolute liability offense that carries jail time.
On the one hand, you want to give more power to the police. (et al. Case of missing ADULT GIRL)
On the other hand, you dont want to give power to police. (et al. Stunt racing laws which are specifically desgined to give police more authority)
Who is the one not thinking? Youre contradicting your self every step of the way. The funny thing is, its not only you, its society that its okay with SOME of their rights being taken away in one area, but then get all huffy puffy when you touch on something else.
On the one hand, you want to give more power to the police. (et al. Case of missing ADULT GIRL)
On the other hand, you dont want to give power to police. (et al. Stunt racing laws which are specifically desgined to give police more authority)
Who is the one not thinking? Youre contradicting your self every step of the way. The funny thing is, its not only you, its society that its okay with SOME of their rights being taken away in one area, but then get all huffy puffy when you touch on something else.
Again, they are two separate issues, but I realize you don't think that way.
On one hand, there is a severe penalty for going well beyond breaking a law that everyone is aware of and reminded of every time you drive (those little black and white signs you see everywhere, they have numbers on them) which strips you of due process when you are in fact guilty of a crime and proven so.
On the other hand, you have people trying to find a missing person and exhausting their last options before giving up and asking for public participation.
Pay close attention to the difference between the two... in one situation, you are caught in the act of a crime.
Don't confuse my opinion either. If you are caught speeding in excess of 50km/h of the posted speed limit, you deserve to have heavy fines imposed on you, with the possibility of license suspension. You are breaking a law, and potentially putting the public in danger. Don't bullshit me about your driving skills either, you can't account for random elements causing a dangerous situation you are contributing to. But you should be entitled to due process and a chance to defend yourself.
Linear Mode
