How often do you see police cars, fire trunks and ambulances with lights and sirens on blowing through red lights at intersections?
And I think they should be allowed too as long as they're on a call and blow the light when its clearly safe to do so.
Under s. 144.1 an ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“emergency vehicleÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â is defined.
Under s. 141 (18) a red light is defined and articulates every driver shall stop and not proceed untill a green light is shown.
Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals
144. (1) In this section,
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“driverÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â includes an operator of a street car; (ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“conducteurÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â)
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“emergency vehicleÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â means,
(a) a vehicle while used by a person in the lawful performance of his or her duties as a police officer, on which a siren is continuously sounding and from which intermittent flashes of red light or red and blue light are visible in all directions, or
(b) either of the following vehicles, on which a siren is continuously sounding and from which intermittent flashes of red light are visible in all directions:
(i) a fire department vehicle while proceeding to a fire or responding to, but not while returning from, a fire alarm or other emergency call, or
(ii) an ambulance while responding to an emergency call or being used to transport a patient or injured person in an emergency situation; (ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“vÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©hicule de secoursÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â)
Under s. 141 (20), all emergency vehicles are required to stop before blowing the red light.
(18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.
This could be a great revenge provision.
Exception ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€œ emergency vehicle
(20) Despite subsection (18), a driver of an emergency vehicle, after stopping the vehicle, may proceed without a green indication being shown if it is safe to do so.
Next time you see a cop blow a red light chase him down and charge him.
The penalty for blowing a red light is currently $150 to $500 but it's soon being raised to $200 to $1000.
Penalty for disobeying red or amber light
(31.2) Every person who contravenes subsection (15) or (18) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $150 and not more than $500.
(31.2.1) Every person who contravenes subsection (18) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000. 2009, c. 5, s. 44 (2).
But be careful, chasing another vehicle is a stunt driving offence.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... 0455_e.htm
Definition, ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“raceÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â and ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“contestÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
2. (1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“raceÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â and ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“contestÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.
Yeah, because random citizens are always in possession of a book of Provincial Offences Notices.Greatest Canadian wrote:Next time you see a cop blow a red light chase him down and charge him
I've got a better idea. Rather than telling OTHER people to do it, YOU do it. Test your ideas in the real world. Let us know what happens.
Not suggesting me doing it, lol...
I like Greatest Canadian ideas/theories, better than no theory at all, any action needs a theory to start off with.
I used to consult paralegals about my traffic cases, they gave me no idea, no theory but wanted my money up front.
Keep them coming Greatest Canadians!
My issue is that GC has made many posts and assumptions that are, as you described, theories only, but often failed to caution people as such. In fact, OPS Copper discussed that in another thread, warning GC that he should stop posting as though his tactics are foolproof and guaranteed to work. I have no problem with someone creating a novel defence, theory or idea, or even suggesting those methods to others, provided that they WARN them about it. If the idea is wrong, and someone unsuspectingly followed the advice, they're up the creek without a paddle, and that could involve something as serious as a stay in the Crowbar Hilton. People need to be properly informed.
I'm not a paralegal or lawyer, and without that training or background, no one should act or talk like one. For that reason, choice of wording for all of us is very important, as we are not qualified to act like we are experts. I won't ever claim any novel idea that I've posted is guaranteed to work. I also won't act like a theory I've created based upon what I read on the internet is a rock-solid fact. No one else should, either.
There is nothing I posted that you could shoot a hole in or else you would've.
Laws are not made for cops, crowns and judges. They are made for citizens. If you read a law and can't understand then the law is of no force and effect. It's called the morality of law. The citizen must know the know in advance so they may conduct themselves accordingly.
Reading the POA closely was shocking, when compared to how it's being applied by cops, crowns and courts.
Anyway, what lower court say doesn't mean jack squat, in most cases, it is only what the the Supreme Court of Canada said that truly matters.
Lower court JPs and justices are appointed by the province, and when you're challenging a provincial law the chances of winning are slim. Look at how many JPs have tried to claim s. 172 was vaild. Look at how the crown, i.e., the government tried to claim speeding over 50kph was a strict liability offence.
The archives doesn't lie. I told you all from day one it was an absolute liabilty offence and of no force and effect. We now have one JP and one Justice who agree with ME, the Greatest Canadian.
Like it or not, I'm the world's leading expert on s. 172 and the Supreme Court will agree with me as well.
The entire law is bunk, and only two of the offences are new. Driving with someone in the trunk. Making a left turn on a green in front of oncoming traffic.
Nevertheless, the entire law will be declared no force or effect or they will make drastic changes to it before it hits the high court.
If you disagree with anything I say please point it out in the threads. I enjoy the debates and looking for people to attack my posotions so I can plug any holes in my arguments that I may have missed.
By the way, I have 8 arbitration wins, no losses, one small claims court win, no losses, one supreme court of Canada win, no losses, and one ontario court win with one court of appeal loss.
My Ontario win was a landmark case that now affects every lawyer and paralegal.
My supreme court win was a landmark ruling that applies in all commonwealth nations worldwide!
I provided argument, I did not present in the Ontario and supreme court cases.
Prison Program Law Certificate? LMAO
Finally we agree on something.Greatest Canadian wrote:Everything on the Internet is opinion, not fact.
As to "there's nothing I posted that you could shoot a hole in," you seem to have mistaken me for someone that cared, or for that matter, even bothered to read most of your posts. I'm not obsessed with laws, I'm only here for fun, but I sure as hell don't want to see someone who wants advice for a simple traffic ticket get suckered into a protracted battle with the legal system. That's why I called you out to begin with. The minutiae of law is not even on my radar screen. You can believe whatever you want, though, I don't give a rat's ***.
People who are really great do not feel the need to tell that to random people on the internet. That kind of talk is particularly off-putting and people start ignoring you, which is probably why most of your rants in the General Talk section have gone unanswered.Greatest Canadian wrote:We now have one JP and one Justice who agree with ME, the Greatest Canadian.
As to your background, more obfuscation. "I provided argument but I did not present..." So you didn't really go to those higher courts, then, and you're also trying to be vague, still. No surprise there. Are you actually going to tell anyone what you really do, or is that too much of a burden?
Paralegals are in for the money, some of their advices are misleading the clients into buying their services. For example a paralegal should have told his client "If you want to plead down you can do it yourself, you don't need me" but instead he said " i can negotiate a lower charge for a fee of $300". In this regard, the good advice/idea is from the internet from people like you, RI or GC, who posted the answers and ideas for free.Radar Identified wrote:...
In fact, OPS Copper discussed that in another thread, warning GC that he should stop posting as though his tactics are foolproof and guaranteed to work. I have no problem with someone creating a novel defence, theory or idea, or even suggesting those methods to others, provided that they WARN them about it. If the idea is wrong, and someone unsuspectingly followed the advice, they're up the creek without a paddle, and that could involve something as serious as a stay in the Crowbar Hilton. People need to be properly informed.
There exists other example where a paralegal sent his client "up a creek without a paddle" as well.
Internet has its own weakness and strength, so does paralegal service. I beleive people are smart enough to use internet advise/idea wisely for their benefit.
But if only people in the legal inductry understand law, then how does anyone explain the massive mess that is the HTA and POA?
And how come cops are blowing red lights when they're required to stop first?
The reason I am now the Greatest Canadian is because my lawman account was deleted by the admin. Why? Good question.
My posts are going unanswered because the threads have been locked. Apparently they're just rants and the rants are not structured properly. I'm not sure if that's really true, but since I pointed out that not one offence notice issued is even valid, thus the poceeding is a nullity before it even begins, maybe paralegals are losing money since you don't need one as no valid hearing was ever held.
OPS suggested I post case law to support my, um, rants. Since most of my arguments are new there is no case law to post. However, I have quoted the provisions of the Acts so you could see and read the law for yourself and decide if what I am arguing is in accordance with the provision. But apparently quoting provisions is also not permitted by the admin and is just wasting bandwidth.
The admins readers come here for advice. We provide it as best we can - for free. Yes, it's only our opinion. The admin has added links for new members to get a professional paralegal's advice - for a fee.
Those who come here for help are sometimes asking the same questions someone else already asked. In order to answer their question we need to type out and repeat everything we already explained. I don't mind doing that but it is time consuming.
The reason I began laying out my opinions in my own thread in the general section is because when someone asks a question already been answered, instead of retyping I was simply going to give them the link to MY bulletproofed opinion on the law in question. But apparently that's not allowed. I'm to retype out everything everytime.
So which way waste more bandwidth, retyping everything out over and over again or simply sending the person a link to the argument that is already laid out?
And you must give a bit of a rats@$$ about my posts since you commented on them in this thread. But if you don't care, that's okay, too.
And yes, I provided the checkmate argument but did not present.
The arguments I provide on here are damn near bulletproof as well. However, I wasn't finished editing and perfecting all of my threads before they were locked, so now some of them are not totally bulletproofed. Believe it or not, some of my best arguments come to me while I'm sleeping. I wake up in the morning and it comes to me. Even when I'm working on one case the computer chip in my head never stops working on other case. When the chip processes the answer, it pops into my head and I post it - for free.
Weird how this works but it's total true.
Greatest Canadian wrote:What I do for a livng is not important (I'm retired).
It isnÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢t important. It doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢t add or detract from credibility. The main reason I pushed you for an answer on your occupation and experience, and dared you to test your ideas yourself, was because of some of your posts had an air of overconfidence and some were disrespectful. Example:
In your reply to me, you didnÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢t use that tone at all, so, IÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢ll drop it and move on.Greatest Canadian, in the 'government corruption' thread wrote:If you can read, and are a paralegal, and have read POA s. 8, and the offence notices, and the French Language Service Act, and disagree with my arguments, then you should refund all your clients the money you ripped them off for while failing to properly represent them, and retire.
Those acts are such a goat rodeo I don't even know where to start. The Liquor Licence Act is even worse. No one needs to be a legal professional or lawyer to understand law, nor should they have to be, I agree.Greatest Canadian wrote:But if only people in the legal inductry understand law, then how does anyone explain the massive mess that is the HTA and POA?
If the officer has looked, observed the traffic situation, proceeds safely, and is responding to an emergency, I have no problem with him not making a full stop, any more than I have a problem with someone speeding on the 400-Series Highways, which have the most underposted speed limits in the universe. In emergencies, seconds make the difference. I have a much, much bigger problem with the a-holes who wonÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢t make any effort to clear the way, but thatÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s just my opinion. If the cop rockets through the intersection without looking, that's a problem.Greatest Canadian wrote:And how come cops are blowing red lights when they're required to stop first?
I agree with that.Greatest Canadian wrote:The admins readers come here for advice. We provide it as best we can - for free. Yes, it's only our opinion.
YouÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢ve done a lot of research and thinking about laws, more than I would. New ideas come to people in all sorts of ways, everyoneÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s mind works differently. If law and new approaches to law is something you're interested in, great. New approaches to traffic tickets can indeed be helpful. That said, until it's backed up with real results, there's no guarantee. We don't know what will happen. What looks great on paper can be a total fiasco when put to the test, some examples being things like Enron, the Maginot Line, the de Havilland Comet, and the Toronto Maple Leafs. If youÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢re willing to go to court with someone who endorses your ideas (liveontheedge?), that would add a lot of credibility, even if the end result is not favourable.
One final thought. There are bad cops, for sure, and cops who make mistakes. It is fair to criticize officers who have gone over the edge, but be mindful of how you do it here, especially since our most respected member is an OPP officer (hwybear), and although OPS Copper is relatively new to this forum, heÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s also a police officer. The reason I'm saying this is that in the past some of your comments about police were uncalled for, although I haven't seen you recently make any such remarks.
That is all.