And this is why you don' t buy your kid a Lambo . . .

Jay wrote: My point is I don't think the law which allows seizure of property before a conviction has been proven is valid or just.

By that line of thinking, police would not be able to confiscate a murder weapon, or any kind of property evidence at all. They have to be able to confiscate items in order to have evidence at court to get a conviction.

Then if someone is convicted, they probably lose those items. If they aren't, they get them back.

This sounds like the property equivalent of detaining someone in jail overnight for causing a problem, and then releasing them without charges the next morning in order to teach them a lesson.

I get the impression that the police are using the extent of the law to be as hard on these kids as possible because the kids have a reputation for doing the same thing over and over, and the cops want to send them the message that they need to cut it out or next time you might not ever get your expensive toys back.

Okay so that line should have had an exception for warranted investigations of serious crimes like murder. That's not what's happening here! I don't think they should just be able to knock on the door and say, "your neighbour said you were shooting in your backyard. Hand over your guns," or, for that matter pull someone over half an hour down the road and seize their car because someone called on their mobile and said they were racing. My big BIG problem here is that this is all based on hearsay evidence from some alleged witnesses - eyewitness accounts being extremely unreliable and borderline downright untrustworthy.

In your example of an illegal firing range being operated I suspect it would take about two seconds for a cop to gather in and find some real evidence - expended shell casings in the yard or whatever. Otherwise, in my opinion, that's not enough. (A friend of mine was once setting off some fire crackers and it was mistaken for gunfire by an "eyewitness...")

I don't have all the solutions here, I'm just not comfortable with the idea that cops can take my stuff if someone doesn't like my face.

Bah, I've been arguing in this thread all afternoon, I'm going to take a break for a while.

(Food for thought: talking on a mobile while driving is also a traffic violation in B.C. - how many of the "eyewitnesses" do you guys think pulled over in a proper rest area before they called? I'm guessing at least some of the callers were involved in a "crime" themselves when they reported.)

Jay wrote: (Food for thought: talking on a mobile while driving is also a traffic violation in B.C. - how many of the "eyewitnesses" do you guys think pulled over in a proper rest area before they called? I'm guessing at least some of the callers were involved in a "crime" themselves when they reported.)

irrelevant.

Jay wrote: My big BIG problem here is that this is all based on hearsay evidence from some alleged witnesses - eyewitness accounts being extremely unreliable and borderline downright untrustworthy.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in that article defining the circumstances of the witnesses, the number, or the reliability.

People have been convicted of heinous crimes since the dawn of time based on eyewitness accounts.

The article says plural, so there were at least 2 witnesses. What if there were 10? 50? How about if there were 200 nuns, or a school full of children, or a group of investigative reporters, or (pick your favorite group). What if they had pictures? Video?

You are working on the assumption that the police had insufficient evidence, which the article does not say. I am working on the facts presented in the article.

If they were wrongfully accused, then they certainly have a case against the accusers and/or the police.

Are you suggesting you think they were innocent? I doubt it.

Jay, the only thing you are getting across is that you have issues with the RCMP. That may be justified, but it doesn't change the authority of the police to impound cars.

I agree with you on the issue of hearsay. The article doesn't say that. If that is the case, I'm sure their rich daddies will be able to get them adequate compensation for their troubles.

aussiesmg wrote:

fasted58 wrote: The car/ weapon analogy is iffy in my book. If the vehicle had been used or attempted to purposely strike an individual or another vehicle to inflict harm, then yes.. a weapon. High rate of speed, no.

So if I shoot a weapon safely is it not a weapon? If I use a baseball bat to beat you, is it not a weapon? If I use a knife to clear a path through a large crowd, what is it? My purpose was only to clear a path. Now you are seeing some grey.

Yes.. guns, bows, crossbows etc. are weapons

A baseball bat is still a baseball bat until it's used to threaten or inflict harm on an individual, then it becomes a weapon

A knife is a utensil or tool until it's used to threaten or inflict harm, then it's a weapon. I used a knife to cut my pork chops at a restaurant tonight, it's still a knife until I decide to threaten other patrons physically to clear a path to the salad bar, then it becomes a weapon.

A rock, pipe, 2X4, box cutter etc. are just rocks, pipes, 2X4s and box cutters until a person uses them to threaten or inflict harm an individual, then they become weapons.

A vehicle is still a vehicle, speeding or not until it's intentionally used to threaten or harm.

So, it's not a weapon if vehicular manslaughter happens? (That's not intentional).

The weapons references were just examples. It doesn't matter if a car is a weapon or not. It's still evidence.

Police have the right to collect evidence.

SVreX wrote: Jay, the only thing you are getting across is that you have issues with the RCMP. That may be justified, but it doesn't change the authority of the police to impound cars. I agree with you on the issue of hearsay. The article doesn't say that. If that is the case, I'm sure their rich daddies will be able to get them adequate compensation for their troubles.

Maybe I have issues with the way all police forces everywhere operate. They're not your parents, they're not the government, they're there for a few very specific reasons and that has been largely ignored in the last 50-100 years in the (usually self driven) push to make them into huge bureaucratic political organizations that have ever increasing power over everyone.

Honestly I'm not going to get anywhere with that by arguing about it on the internet...

My specific problems in this case are (a) that cops have sufficient power to impound vehicles at all, for any length of time with no proof they'd even been used in the commission of a crime, beyond a few eyewitness reports that could very well be completely unreliable, and (b) the first knee-jerk reaction in the posting of this thread is that "the cops should have just crushed all the cars in front of their faces." Sorry to single you out here Kazoospec, but that attitude gives me the willies.

I don't think I'm bringing anything new to the table in this thread anymore, I'm just reiterating points that I've already made. Gonna go do something else now...

oh sorrrrry since berkely is said here often, i dont see a reason not to use the word that means the same thing.

silly me, i forgot dumb BERKELYs like you keep eroding our freedoms and protections against a oppressive government in the search for some elusive "safety"

Would you be happy if they seize your property just because someone called the cops to complain that you were doing something unsafe. They called the cops, so you must have been doing it, right! or they can just bypass all legality's lock you up and take all your property by calling you a terrorist! Im sure you'd like that.

collecting evidence where its obvious that a crime has been committed is a long way from seizing a car based on a phone call(s) where no one was hurt and it isn't clear that any crime has been committed. hell why not just take the car away from anyone who speeds, that would make us safer, right! (rolls eyes)

Police officers have tools to measure speed because even they are not qualified to just say someone is speeding and have it hold up in court. The average citizen who sees a car drive by at high speed is not qualified to judge actual speed. They are especially not qualified enough to judge speed to the point of being able to use their phone reports to seize someones property. Writing laws that are designed to punish without having to prove a crime is way outside the intent of our legal system. I'm not sure how Canada works but enough "Impounding cars for Street Racing" laws exist in our country to make this story relevant to us.

In reply to Rocco R16V:

Self control isn't your strong suit, is it?

How about a little respect for the owner's of this website who have no use whatsoever for your foul mouthed garbage being spewed for no apparent reason? You are deteriorating the value of this website to the advertisers and community who utilize it.

I really don't care what you think of me. But you don't seem to give a rat's behind about anybody here. You've been asked more than once to put a lid on it.

Some of us care about the content and quality of this website, and show it by using our "freedoms" with a little bit of discretion and respect. Those who do not are not welcome.

SVreX wrote: Some of us care about the content and quality of this website, and show it by using our "freedoms" with a little bit of discretion and respect. Those who do not are not welcome.

+1

(b) the first knee-jerk reaction in the posting of this thread is that "the cops should have just crushed all the cars in front of their faces." Sorry to single you out here Kazoospec, but that attitude gives me the willies.

Don't sweat it, I'm a big boy. Here's what I think you're missing here. Are eyewitnesses sometimes wrong? Yes. But about what? Whether the guy, whom they've never met and don't know, with the mask over 90% of their face, who just shoved a gun in their face, is person X as opposed person Y. Maybe. Whether a car is going 90mph vs. 120mph, maybe. Whether two cars are blocking off a highway so others can hold drag races on public highways with supercars? HIGHLY unlikely. Does it really matter whether the witnesses are correct that they were doing 120mph vs 90mph? And lets be honest, they may not be "race" cars, but Lambos, GTR's etc. jump to triple digits from a rolling start in a heartbeat, so what witnesses claim is perfectly reasonable and believeable to me. The fact is, they were blocking traffic to streetrace. Its VERY unlikely that witnesses were wrong about that. And if that's what they were doing, then YES, their cars should be taken and destroyed, just like the Canadian gov't seems to like to do to the poor kids who drive riced up Civics.

BTW - the original point was: I think its ridiculous that parents would buy their probationary driver children supercars. Since they chose to misuse those supercars, they should be treated like everyone else under similar circumstances. If the decision not to do so is based upon the evidence available to prove the case to the necessary standard, so be it. If they weren't certain of who was actually involved, or what specific part they played in the incident, I get that. If it was differential treatment of spoiled idiots, then it kind of sucks.

The definition of hearsay evidence

Definition of HEARSAY EVIDENCE
: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath

By that definition if "another" gives that evidence to the court, it is not hearsay, it is direct evidence.

Stop using the term hearsay to describe the witnesses accounts, it is incorrect to call witness testimony hearsay

Having money and buying an awesome car? Smart.

Having money and not racing on track? Dumb.

Grassroots Motorsports Forum turns average folks into lawyers? True.

Datsun1500 wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Jay wrote: (Food for thought: talking on a mobile while driving is also a traffic violation in B.C. - how many of the "eyewitnesses" do you guys think pulled over in a proper rest area before they called? I'm guessing at least some of the callers were involved in a "crime" themselves when they reported.)

irrelevant.

Ok but take that a little further. The cops figure the people called while driving so they impound those cars also and it cost a few hundred to get your car out. Is that reasonable? It's pretty close to the same thing. If you take the car under the "gathering evidence" scenario and it cost nothing to get it back after you are not charged and you are reimbursed for any related expenses, no big deal. Getting a car impounded will cost you money even if you are never charged or convicted, how is that fair? A cop could stop you, write up a ticket and impound your car. $300 and 3 days later you get it back and are never convicted. A week later he does it again, for another $300 impound fee, fair?

Completely speculative.

It didn't happen, and I've never heard of a single instance EVER when such a thing DID happen.

If it did, there would be a pretty good case for a suit against the police for abuse of power. There are PLENTY of lawyers who would love to take up that one.

As presented, the police did NOT abuse their power. They used it appropriately as authorized to do their job.

As others, you are making a LOT of assumptions about the case which DO NOT appear in that article.

Sure is a lot of hatin for authority around here...

Datsun - I understand what you're saying, but the other side of it is: Is it only a crime if the police are there to see it? The results of that system of thought are equally ridiculous. In fact MOST crime of any kind occurs when the police aren't around. I'd be willing to guess if this was "organized" street racing, someone probably went ahead to make sure the police WEREN'T there. Doesn't make it any less criminal or dangerous. If the police can prove what they were up to in a legally sufficient manner, the charges, and vehicle seizure, should stand. If not, they get their cars back. If the report was made not by someone who witnessed an illegal street race, but by the kid with the 2009 Lambo who was being mocked as a pauper by the "cool kids", they can sue him in civil court for malicious prosecution. If the police illegally seized the cars based on legally insufficient proof, again the Jeffrey Fieger/Sam Bersteins of the world stand ready. (Sorry if that's a local reference) What's wrong with that?

Datsun1500 wrote: Ok, try this. I call and say I saw you racing. They stop you and impound your car. You are not charged with racing but it still cost you time and money. The police did not see you do it, it's based on my phone call. Is it fair that you lose money based on my opinion only?

I'll bet you'll loose more than me when I sue you for damages and defamation of character.

The police are not in the business of "fair". They are in the business of law enforcement.

(BTW, the courts are not in the business of "fair" either. They are in the business of justice).

I really don't care if it is fair. Fair is not their job. Fair MIGHT be the job of the legislators. As I have previously noted, feel free to call your congressman to change the law. You won't make any progress on the question of impounding vehicles.

Datsun1500 wrote:

kazoospec wrote: If the police can prove what they were up to in a legally sufficient manner, the charges, and vehicle seizure, should stand. If not, they get their cars back.

Ok so they get the cars back. Who pays for the impound, towing, rental car, etc?

Collateral damage for having a criminal justice system.

Would you prefer the alternative??

In reply to Datsun1500:

Police spoke to witnesses, plural, before making the arrest. I'm pretty sure there were also multiple calls to the police about the incident.

So, no you couldn't get my car impounded just by making one call to the police. But if a bunch of neighbors all called at the same time, maybe.

Datsun1500 wrote:

I'll bet you'll loose more than me when I sue you for damages and defamation of character.

Not if my opinion is that you were racing and I stick to that. I'll win. What damages did I cause? I did not tow your car... That's the issue. I can cause you to lose money and there is nothing you can do about it.

That's not true. I can use the same legal system to pursue you and get compensation for the losses.

Your opinion doesn't matter if I am not guilty. You can't win in court if you can't prove it.

If you are unable to prove it, then your false accusations DID cause loss, and you WILL NOT win.

Innocent until proven guilty. Remember?

Additionally, if the police impounded it without cause, I have a case to sue them as well.

The system works fine in this case. It is important to make the distinction between what is a right and what is justice, and what is individual's dislike of the police.

Let's forget about guns and cars for a minute and talk about authority.

I am a homeschooler. We've been doing it for 18 years, and I have been President of the local homeschooling association, so I have a lot of experience with people who homeschool and the laws related to what they do.

DFACS (in GA the department of family services- perhaps a different name in your state) has an uncomfortable level of authority which is relevant to homeschoolers at times.

If a neighbor accuses a homeschooler of child abuse (including educational neglect), DFACS has the authority to show up with the police and take your children. That's right, I said they can TAKE MY KIDS on the ACCUSATION ONLY of a neighbor, and there is NOTHING I can do about it (except call my lawyer).

Impounding a car isn't even on the scale when you start talking about taking people's kids.

I struggled with this for a long time, and I DO know personally several people who have had their kids taken into protective custody (for NO reason other than alleged "truancy"). I was completely unhappy with the level of authority that DFACS has, and sometimes excercises.

Then I started thinking about the consequences. What if there REALLY were situations where kids were being abused? What if they DIDN'T have the authority to take the kids into protective custody? Children could suffer or die if they did not have the authority to immediately take them into custody.

So, I am not happy with the authority they have, but I understand the need for them to have it. If they cross the line and abuse that authority, I will most certainly shred them in court (as well as the jacka$$ neighbor who wrongfully accused us). But I recognize the need for DFACS to have pretty huge authority, even if I don't like it.

BC law here:

http://fightyourtickets.ca/bc-government-announces-harsh-speeding-laws-penaltie/