You come at this from the point of view of a law-abiding citizen dealing with minor traffic matters. Misleading and, yes, lying when trying to gain evidence against some of the most heinous members of our society is a critical part of criminal police work. Don't forget that the same police officer who may stop you for a burnt out tail light could well, the very next day, be interrogating someone who has been abusing children. I used to get very frustrated with people who only saw police from their very peaceful part of the planet without realising the horrors, and horrific people, that we deal with - mostly behind closed doors of residences so it isn't seen by the public.

I am all for police protecting us from crime and criminals. But when there is no harm, no injury or no damage then there is no crime and the police should not be involved.

If, for example, speeding laws are there to keep us safe, then why does the prosecution not have to prove the speeding was unsafe in order to get a conviction? Because it would be a big loss of revenue for the Province, that's why!

There are detachments of the OPP where the majority of what they do is chase down speeders on the 401. And they get paid over $100,000 a year to do that?

Maybe my issue is more with government than with the police, but the "just doing their job" excuse does not really work for me.

Go catch somebody that has done some harm/injury/damage and I am all in support of that.

Ah were closer together than you might think. I've always said that the entire HTA should be thrown out for just one offence - driving like a moron. Then it would be up to the officer to present why the driving behaviour was a problem. I have seen officers sit in the 'fishing homes' and I agree that it is nothing but a cash grab.

jsherk wrote:I am all for police protecting us from crime and criminals. But when there is no harm, no injury or no damage then there is no crime and the police should not be involved.

If, for example, speeding laws are there to keep us safe, then why does the prosecution not have to prove the speeding was unsafe in order to get a conviction? Because it would be a big loss of revenue for the Province, that's why!

I hate to sound contradicting, but I agree and disagree. I agree that they pick on minor things (i.e. 120km/h on the 401 e.t.c.) where it is safe to do so, but technically illegal.

But at the same time, lets say that I am a qualified race car driver, and have a certificate stated I completed training on how to maneuver vehicles at high speeds, as well as safety and accident prevention (MoSport offers these lessons). Then going back to your statement "Why does the prosecution not have to prove the speeding was unsafe in order to get a conviction?" So lets say I get caught stunt driving at 267km/h in a 40 zone. I can argue because of my certificate, I am properly qualified to operate a vehicle at that speed, therefore it was not unsafe.

Just my 2 cents.

No because then I can argue that the road is not designed for that speed, people do not expect you to drive that fast etc etc