And another reason to strike down S.172

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/645979

That Sergeant needed to be pulled from the road. The vehicle impoundment idea was nothing other than a gleeful attempt to show "those God-damn street racers" that "we're gonna get you." Then they went after everyone except the real street racers and, in this case, looks like that guy went after anyone he wanted to. Now there are allegations of him receiving kickbacks from towing companies. One word: Travesty.

The easiest way to ensure that this does not happen again is to remove the vehicle impoundment part of the legislation. (Sigh... wish that would happen... probably won't until it goes up to the Ontario Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada.) Even the 7-day licence suspension doesn't sit well with me but the licence is property of the province so they can technically do what they want with it. Even then, a 24-hour suspension should suffice, it still stops them in their tracks and forces alternate arrangements. The only time a vehicle impoundment might be useful is if it is involved in a cannonball run, but then police could use the Criminal Code provisions and still seize the vehicle.

I just thank God they caught that one and ONLY officer in the province who would have the gawl to over-extend his authority

"I asked him why he pulled me over and he said, `Today I'm only picking white cars,'" recalls Breznica, who owns a white 2008 Mercedes-Benz and had his two young children in the back seat at the time. "I asked him if I was the only one driving around here with a white car, and he said yes. Honest to God, that's what he told me."

LOL ...This cop is funny! Glad he got arrested. What a Jerk!

Ya i just read that to.

I wonder what Julian Fantino thinks of the road side trial now?

This is exactly why this law is garbage.

I like what the guy says about he is still down about 900 $ for the towing and storage fees.

172, needs to be changed and or scrapped.

Just one of thousands of people in Ontario screwed over by this law.

Justice!!!!!

And the officer, well he gets his day in court before being convicted, other people not so lucky.

Fantino still thinks the roadside trial is amazing. Imagine his reaction if the SIU were given the same sort of arbitrary, irrevocable authority. He'd be foaming at the mouth. I'm not suggesting the SIU should be given anything like that, but still, just imagine.

Complete silence from the powers-that-be at Queen's Park. I wonder why that might be. I'm sure they'll pass it off as an isolated incident, try to divert attention saying it is necessary in the interest of safety (e.g. "look at how deaths have gone down - never mind the high gas prices and the effect it has") and then start chewing people out: "How can you support speeding? Think of the children!" In other words, try to change the subject, because dealing with the issue is too difficult.

Oh ya don't forget about those CO2 emissions from driving to fast R.I

...nothing can make up for the $950 he had to pay the tow truck company and the hundreds of dollars he spent on taxis for the week his car was impounded...

Perhaps using the suspension pay to recoup those losses could do the trick?

Radar Identified wrote:

Fantino still thinks the roadside trial is amazing. Imagine his reaction if the SIU were given the same sort of arbitrary, irrevocable authority. He'd be foaming at the mouth. I'm not suggesting the SIU should be given anything like that.

SIU????

The guys and gals with them fancy ball jackets on?

The guys and gals who are investagating a record number of cases this year?

The same guys and gals who have done nothing since Martin left?

The same guys and gals the province is going to call to look at the OPP and the AG illegal conduct up in Barrie this week?

This crook will be on Paid vacation for 3 years.

Yes, what I'm saying is imagine how Julian Fantino would feel if his officers were subjected to an immediate, irrevocable punishment without any proof by another agency, so I picked the SIU. So imagine if they got called to a collision scene under that context: Well, I haven't done an investigation, there's nothing proven yet - so I'll issue an immediate termination of the officer's employment and 7 days in jail to "safeguard" the public. How would Fantino like that? He'd go off like Krakatoa.

No one should be subject to the type of irreversible punishment imposed at the roadside that s. 172 brings, not in a "free and democratic" country anyway.

Radar Identified wrote:

How would Fantino like that? He'd go off like Krakatoa.

Mass destruction, short period of time..... Fantino may have a new nickname

He'd be Julian "the Volcano" Fantino.

That's got a nice ring to it, "And in this corner, weighing in at 270lbs, 50lbs of ego, The Volcano"......Let's get ready to rumbllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllle.

Maybee BelSti would fight him.

With his dogs on the side of the ring with the Anti 172 Shirts!!!!

1 Hit for every unconstitutional road side trial !

tdrive2 wrote:

1 Hit for every unconstitutional road side trial !

Ohhh, that will be not a "pizza face" but a "pizza body". Bel would also have to have enough body strength to deliver 12000 punches, or 1000 punches per round. That's 5-6 hits per second. Bel would probably get the nickname "Helicopter" after that!

Last week I talked with MPP Mr. Peter Tabuns , He said John Newell's book has many valid points.

He also said he would bring this matter before legislature, but he needs letters from people who have been affected by this law, particularly from the victims of Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer and from who's been nailed with 172 and been found innocent in court!

I would think a written letter would be best, an e-mail would do also!

I need those same letters sent here: mrlitho21@msn.com for my next meeting with Mr. Tabuns.

Mr. Peter Tabuns

421 Donlands Ave

East York, ON

M4J 3S2

tabunsp-co@ndp.on.ca

Please take the time and write a letter!

Bel,

Awesome work keeping this alive! I sure hope you post this on some of the performance car/motorcycle sites. You'll likely get more "victims".

TC.

Good work Bel! Looks like there might be an opportunity for a breakthrough here. Just one other thing: Should this be a sticky? Just thinking it might get more attention that way. The more evidence we can get to Mr. Tabuns, the better.

Any other way I can help?

Thanks guys

I will sit for a few days and see what we get!

Sticky Sounds good ..................have to ask Admin for that!

Radar Identified wrote:

Good work Bel! Looks like there might be an opportunity for a breakthrough here. Just one other thing: Should this be a sticky? Just thinking it might get more attention that way. The more evidence we can get to Mr. Tabuns, the better.

Any other way I can help?

Yes Sir there is, can you write the AG and the OPP and ask them to stop the jury rigging up in Barrie

BelSlySTi wrote:

Yes Sir there is, can you write the AG and the OPP and ask them to stop the jury rigging up in Barrie

Guess your not following this too closely....this practice has also been done by the Windsor Police, Thunder Bay Police.

And it is not jury rigging at all. An example of that would be putting people on the jury who have all had someone killed by an impaired driver in a impaired driving causing death case.

To my understanding is the crown was trying to get jurors that had a completely clean background...imagine that. But defence wants anyone, including criminals to be jurors.

Apparently No sense trying to fight the whiny sniffling downturn of canadian society where criminals have all the rights and victims zero! Everyone jumps on the help the criminal band wagon!

hwybear wrote:

BelSlySTi wrote:

Yes Sir there is, can you write the AG and the OPP and ask them to stop the jury rigging up in Barrie

Guess your not following this too closely....this practice has also been done by the Windsor Police, Thunder Bay Police.

And it is not jury rigging at all. An example of that would be putting people on the jury who have all had someone killed by an impaired driver in a impaired driving causing death case.

To my understanding is the crown was trying to get jurors that had a completely clean background...imagine that. But defence wants anyone, including criminals to be jurors.

Apparently No sense trying to fight the whiny sniffling downturn of canadian society where criminals have all the rights and victims zero! Everyone jumps on the help the criminal band wagon!

I'm all for criminals getting stiffer punishments, but if you are to be tried in this country, it is to be done by a jury of your "peers". Legal definition of "peers" being society at large, not a hand picked few. Personally I would go onto the street at noon, bigger variety of people, an go you, you and you, in here.

And sticky it is.............

hwybear wrote:

Guess your not following this too closely....this practice has also been done by the Windsor Police, Thunder Bay Police.

And it is not jury rigging at all. An example of that would be putting people on the jury who have all had someone killed by an impaired driver in a impaired driving causing death case.

To my understanding is the crown was trying to get jurors that had a completely clean background...imagine that. But defence wants anyone, including criminals to be jurors.

Apparently No sense trying to fight the whiny sniffling downturn of canadian society where criminals have all the rights and victims zero! Everyone jumps on the help the criminal band wagon!

My understanding of the "law" is that doing detailed background checks on potential jurors is 100% illegal. It's not bending the law...it's breaking the law. People have the right to privacy.

If this wasn't blatantly breaking the law, then the Attorney General wouldn't have done squat about it....and he immediately stopped the practice. Although, I'd assume the practice was totally promoted internally until the media got ahold of the story.

They're allowed to cite a criminal record legally and that's it. But the media got access to the notes that were given to the Crown by the OPP and things like "doesn't like Police" were written beside names.....WTF???....what kind of check did they do to come to that conclusion?

So the system was trying to buck it's own system....and to me, that's a conscious attempt to stack a jury.

If I'm up on trial in front of a jury of my peers, I want a balanced jury. And to get a balanced jury you need folks who might just question the tact of law enforcement and not just take their word for it. Cause if my future hangs in the balance, I want everyone on that jury to question everything.....not just folks who represent the June Cleaver's of yesteryear