“Street Racing?”

Bookm wrote:But slip the back-end out a little bit (due to a posi rear-end behind a 400ci engine) and some hardcore cops just might use the written definition of "stunt" to ruin your day.:

Simple common sense.....leave a small squawk, don't even think anything will be done......squeal, smoke billowing OR squeall all the way through the complete turn....then someone might be walking!

I still don't agree with that, it should be up to the judge to decide that and not some rookie officer that is in a bad mood. I thought we live in a free country and are innocent untill proven guilty??. Total BS if you ask me. Thats just a publicity stunt, as bad as David Millers proposal to close down shooting ranges in Toronto. He said that guns are very dangerous and people should not have them in their possesion even as a hobby. On the same note according to Fantino cars are used as a weapon also in some cases. Why not crush all the cars and be done with it. All these new laws and rules look good on paper and appeal to the public but really don't solve anything other then make huge money for the government.

casper wrote:I still don't agree with that, it should be up to the judge to decide that and not some rookie officer that is in a bad mood. I thought we live in a free country and are innocent untill proven guilty??. Total BS if you ask me. Thats just a publicity stunt, as bad as David Millers proposal to close down shooting ranges in Toronto. He said that guns are very dangerous and people should not have them in their possesion even as a hobby. On the same note according to Fantino cars are used as a weapon also in some cases. Why not crush all the cars and be done with it. All these new laws and rules look good on paper and appeal to the public but really don't solve anything other then make huge money for the government.

That one's got some zing to it

casper wrote:I still don't agree with that,

that is what is so great, we can all have our opinion.

casper wrote:it should be up to the judge

Ontario Court of Justice does NOT uses judges!

casper wrote:David Millers proposal to close down shooting ranges in Toronto. He said that guns are very dangerous and people should not have them in their possesion even as a hobby.

Yep, that is brutal!! Never going to prevent gun violence, same as the gun registry has never helped, except to punish every day people, not the people doing the crimes!

casper wrote:On the same note according to Fantino cars are used as a weapon also in some cases. Why not crush all the cars and be done with it.

I have personally seen a car used as a weapon, but of course someone just reading articles or sitting at a coffee shop or sitting in a lunch room, does not have an appreciation for what we deal with and see, way too often. Everytime I have seen a car used as a weapon, it is usually well "self crushed".

WEAPON: anything used OR designed to be used OR intended for use

- to cause death to a person

- to injure a person

- to threaten a person

casper wrote:

The new laws and rules look good on paper and appeal to the public but really don't solve anything other then make huge money for the government.

Bill 203 takes the extreme brutal drivers off the road that have absolutely no care in the world for following the rules of the road. The every day, motoring public is not affected.

Gov't making money ........too funny........ no one has to give the gov't one penny, just follow the rules of the road.

It is also funny, that people cry about the costs of tickets (which are avoidable), but don't think twice about buying a beer, smokes or GASOLINE!! Those items are taxed to death (NOT avoidable) and no one bats an eye at paying it........kinda of screwed up mentality!

EG Gasoline

2003 63 cents litre

2004 70 cents (11% increase from 2003)

2005 84 cents (20% increase from 2004) or (33% increase from 2003)

2006 90 cents (7% increase from 2006) or (42% increase from 2003)

2007 104 cents (15% increase from 2006) or (65% increase from 2003)

2008 126 cents (21% increase from 2007) or (100% increase from 2003) I KNOW my PAY has not went up 100% over 5yrs

With about 40% being the actual cost of the fuel!!

EG: Cigarettes

Taxed at 13 cents per cigarette.

EG: Alcohol

46% of price is tax.......not to foget the when going to a restaurant you get charged and "Alchol tax" as well!

hwybear wrote:

It is also funny, that people cry about the costs of tickets (which are avoidable), but don't think twice about buying a beer, smokes or GASOLINE!! Those items are taxed to death (NOT avoidable) and no one bats an eye at paying it........kinda of screwed up mentality!

EG Gasoline

2003 63 cents litre

2004 70 cents (11% increase from 2003)

2005 84 cents (20% increase from 2004) or (33% increase from 2003)

2006 90 cents (7% increase from 2006) or (42% increase from 2003)

2007 104 cents (15% increase from 2006) or (65% increase from 2003)

2008 126 cents (21% increase from 2007) or (100% increase from 2003) I KNOW my PAY has not went up 100% over 5yrs

With about 40% being the actual cost of the fuel!!

EG: Cigarettes

Taxed at 13 cents per cigarette.

EG: Alcohol

46% of price is tax.......not to foget the when going to a restaurant you get charged and "Alchol tax" as well!

Are you sure you're not an accountant . I think caspers main point about the legal system getting the runaround, punishment before court, is justified. I have seen the rookie cops at ride programs almost demanding I take a breathalyzer for admitting to having one beer and the "seasoned" officer giving him the "shut the fun up" look. I am sure 'Bear that we won't have to worry about you using this law out of context, however you are not every cop.

Reflections....well I do have a business accounting diploma....but still forgot most....so relied on internet calculators and websites for the info.

I understand your perspective of Caspers comments a lot better than the original post. I do not think it would be so much the young officers, a lot are very good (especially the guy I'm training right now ) and very educated. As every job, there are bad apples, and these ones sometimes could misinterpret legislation or make bad decisions, which then makes bad case law all across the board plus makes us all look bad.

I do not know about the punishment before the conviction that you mention. This has been done for years on different charges (ie 90 day ADLS of a licence and not yet convicted of an impaired, CMV Impoundment as well for "x" number of days). Further, many people are out on "bail" (keep it simple) with conditions, and yet no conviction yet.

Having all that behind us, I certainly respect others point of view, and can appreciate the concern.

hwybear wrote:Reflections....well I do have a business accounting diploma....but still forgot most....so relied on internet calculators and websites for the info.

I understand your perspective of Caspers comments a lot better than the original post. I do not think it would be so much the young officers, a lot are very good (especially the guy I'm training right now ) and very educated. As every job, there are bad apples, and these ones sometimes could misinterpret legislation or make bad decisions, which then makes bad case law all across the board plus makes us all look bad.

I do not know about the punishment before the conviction that you mention. This has been done for years on different charges (ie 90 day ADLS of a licence and not yet convicted of an impaired, CMV Impoundment as well for "x" number of days). Further, many people are out on "bail" (keep it simple) with conditions, and yet no conviction yet.

Having all that behind us, I certainly respect others point of view, and can appreciate the concern.

I seem to see the young officers being more "aggressive" in their approach to situations, just from what I have personally witnessed. The "seasoned" officers seem to be able to make better judgements about people, or have more knowledge of the people they are dealing with and seem to be friendlier, such as yourself, you're around 35 if I remember correctly. Still, when I see a younger officer I wonder about their judgement and analytical[sp.] skills. The problem with this law is the subjectiveness of the application.

Anyone else heard this regarding HTA sec 172(BadBill203)

(Below is copy and pasted from another site)

I have a bit of news in regard to the now famous Sec. 172 of the HTA which is to occur in Caledon East, Ontario this Thursday June 5th. There is to be a challenge to the Charter Application which is to be put forth on this day. Obviously it will be put over for judgement but at least there is now a movement by someone to have this law revised (at a minimum) or hopefully eliminated.

I will update you if and when I gain receipt of more information.

Anyone else heard of this?

And where did you find that???????

From a mostly Anti-police site,which I am not,nor am I Pro-police!

Which actually brang me too this site, it's in the middle!

I have heard that also, but have not seen anything in B&W. I heard it was going to be in October and apparently a 320 page document. This info I have was from a local paralegal, who said literally said "I don't have time to read all that BS, as it apparently it is a rights issue and yet driving clearing written is a priviledge".

time will tell!

hwybear wrote:I have heard that also, but have not seen anything in B&W. I heard it was going to be in October and apparently a 320 page document. This info I have was from a local paralegal, who said literally said "I don't have time to read all that BS, as it apparently it is a rights issue and yet driving clearing written is a priviledge".

time will tell!

Driving is a priviledge but you do have the right to your day in court before the sentence is served.

Reflections wrote:

hwybear wrote:I have heard that also, but have not seen anything in B&W. I heard it was going to be in October and apparently a 320 page document. This info I have was from a local paralegal, who said literally said "I don't have time to read all that BS, as it apparently it is a rights issue and yet driving clearing written is a priviledge".

time will tell!

Driving is a priviledge but you do have the right to your day in court before the sentence is served.

No difference between the 7 day suspension and the

- 90 day ADLS suspension

OR in criminal matters where conditions are imposed on people who are not yet convicted and must abide by until trial

Every thing else where the offence is criminal I agree, but until speeding becomes criminal I see no need for the judge, jury and executioner to be on the side of the road.

90 day ADLS and 12 hour suspension are actually both Provincially imposed suspensions, HTA 48. FYI