50 over is still not a stunt if you are used to it.

Reflections wrote:

50 over is still not a stunt if you are used to it.

still meets the definition under what is a stunt

hwybear wrote:

I don't really think it matters that the person was a school teacher, priest, mortician, doctor, lawyer, sanitary technician etc...all would have been treated the same.

Reference the car crushing....there has been no crushed cars since the revamped Bill 203 that came in effect 30 September 2007. So bringing the car crushing from prior dates should not be included as evidence.

It also states the offence relates to Dangerous Driving a Criminal Offence. The article does not state whether this was a judges order? Was this part of the proceeds of crime legislation? Where property is turned over to the Crown.

I do not know other areas, but our area is not issing "racing charges" as there was not an "actual race". We are using "Stunt Driving"

You're right, it doesn't matter what his profession is. I just noted it to show that this individual is in no way shape or form a street racer, stunt driver or dangerous driver.

As far as the crushing goes, the cars were seized under the Civil Remedies Act. It doesn't say whether it was federal or provincial and when I started this I didn't know there were two. However, when I did find out there was a provincial one it looked like my assumption was entirely wrong. That nearly blew me away. Until I looked at the amendment dates - all in 2007 - after the cars were seized. So either way, the police broke the law it seems.

The language of either act didn't permit seizure unless bodily harm was likely. Likely means better than a 50% chance. That likelihood didn't exist.

If it turns out that I'm right then not only was the government party to crime but in fact by changing the language of the law after the fact and not telling anyone fraud was committed not just against the offenders but against the public as well since the public would have been under the misconception too.

There needs to be an independent review of the Ontario Civil Liberties Act and not by some government official either or the evidence will be covered up for sure.

Keep in mind Hwybear that this is not about whether or not the drivers did or did not commit offences. This is strictly about whether or not the government broke the law.

My contention is that poorly written legislation serves no one and that is turning out to be the case here.

As far as I'm concerned, the police on the street have been victimized as well even if they don't think so yet.

hwybear wrote:

Reflections wrote:

50 over is still not a stunt if you are used to it.

still meets the definition under what is a stunt

50 over is first and foremost a speeding offence.

The government inventions for the word stunt does not make going 50 over a stunt unless doing it is an unusual occurence.

Since many, many drivers on the 401 and 400 commonly drive or drove faster than that for the entire modern life of those roadways, it's not a stunt by the legal definition, it's something commonly done that the police are desperately trying to stop and using the wrong reasons to justify their actions.

To make matters worse for the police, they commonly did the same thing and there is not likely a member on this board or any other board who hasn't seen police driving at way over the posted speed limit for no reason.

And off duty. Well that's always been another story hasn't it? Off duty cops drive like bookm too. I know some that do. Despite Fantino's claims to the contrary, his force is not lily white and never will be. Unreasonable restrictions get treated as unreasonable no matter who you work for.

And think of this. If the speed limit were put back to where it was - at 70, the 50 over would be at 100 mph.

I once had a ticket in in West Virginia two or three years ago. I forget how fast I was going. About 10 mph over or something like that. I disputed it right up to the local police chief. He finally said that if I could give him the phone number of a police chief anywhere along the 401 who would agree with me that most people drove at between 80 and 100 mph on the 401 safely, not kph, he would cancel my ticket.

I gave him the phone number for Durham Regional Police and I never heard another word.

The only time people drive the speed limit on 400 series highways is when there is a visible cop blocking traffic or an accident. And yes that's exactly what they do - block traffic - slow it down to an unreasonably slow speed and cause bunch-ups behind them nearly a kilometer long in some cases.

You can't tell me you've never seen that.

You also have keep in mind that for the number of vehicles on the road and the speed they are going there are very few accidents.

Just imagine if the cops told the truth and started focusing on driver distractions instead of speeding. THEN you would see a major drop in the accident rate. Cell phones, text messaging, books, TVs, kids whining, pets crawling around, food, coffee and the occasional oral sex act all contribute to the accident rate yet you guys are nearly mute on those subjects. The public is aware but wants to keep doing those things. So they aren't talking. The cops are doing them as well except maybe the oral part - at least in Canada. So guess what? You guys aren't talking either!

All of those things equate to driver incompetence. You are either driving or your doing something else. If you are doing something else, and do it often enough, you are going to crash. How simple is that?

I've been driving for over 40 years and logging over 50,000 miles, not kilometers a year. That's over two million accident free miles. That's a lot of time in which to see a lot of what goes on and most of it was spent on the 401 and the 400. What I see and what the police say are generally two completely different things.

I think it's time the public was told the truth.

Reflections wrote:

50 over is still not a stunt if you are used to it.

Since the Ontario government is reinventing the English language to suit itself, not the public, it is a stunt to them, but not to anyone with half a brain who knows what the real meaning of the word stunt is.

Funk and Wagnalls

Stunt 1. A sensational feat; as of bodily skill; 2. any thrilling or unusual feat or undertaking.

Driving at 50 kph over the limit is normal in Ontario. Or was until very recently. It was not a stunt. Has never been considered a stunt.

Here is another word:

entrap 1. to catch as in a trap. 2. To trick into danger of difficulty; to deceive, ensnare

By inventing new meanings for the word racing and stunt, entrap is what the government has done.

The underlying connotation is of course that the entrapment occurs as a result of a deception.

Deception is the core of the street racing legislation. How any police officer can defend a litany of legislation based on falsehood is beyond me.

Once you choose to use a lie as the foundation for a law, you have departed from the course of justice and are on the slippery slope to anarchy.

still meets the definition under what is a stunt

Unfortunately we are nothing but pawns in someones political game. An entire province has changed based on someone wanting to get re-elected and using a half true story to under the guise of safety. I sure am glad Fantino didn't go after 30 over.

So either way, the police broke the law it seems.

I don't think they did. If I recall correctly, the car-crushing came after a conviction was entered against both drivers and it was ordered by a judge. The drivers were convicted of Dangerous Driving (criminal charge) and their vehicles were forfeited to the Crown. To send a message, they decided to squash the cars. Now for the abstract argument:

Even if I did have a problem with the type of punishment imposed in those cases (which really I don't, given the type of offence committed and the fact it was imposed after they got convicted), the issue is whether or not the action was unconstitutional or violated common-law precedent respecting property rights. It doesn't appear to be the case, since there is a lot of precedent allowing that sort of thing, post-conviction.

What violates both the constitution and common-law precedent is an unappealable, immediate seizure of lawfully-owned property with an accompanying sentence (7 day-impoundment) prior to conviction. For over 1000 years such an action has been regarded as punishment. You can't do that without a conviction. You also can't deny an accused individual the right to be heard in respect of such a seizure. Licence suspensions are a little less clear-cut.

McGuinty & Bryant thought they could get away with it, because vehicles get towed and impounded all the time, for things such as the vehicle being unsafe, the driver being impaired, etc. The difference is, if the vehicle is unsafe, the owner still has access to it, but before it can be driven it must be repaired. If the motorist is impaired, a licence suspension takes effect, but the vehicle was generally detained or stored until another licenced, but "non-impaired" motorist could retrieve it, even though Mr Drunk Guy couldn't operate the car. If a vehicle got towed for a parking infraction, the owner could retrieve it immediately, at the impound lot. You can get your car back, even if you can't operate it. Driving is said to be a privilege, not a right... ownership of property and access to it is a right.

Unfortunately, I don't think the people in Queen's Park aren't going to change this law. The courts are going to have to strike it down.

Driving at 50 kph over the limit is normal in Ontario. Or was until very recently.

On the 407, it still is.

That was a good post and you make most of my points.

The part about the trial before crushing I wasn't able to confirm or otherwise on the net and still haven't been able as the articles I referenced and could find didn't reference it. What the attorney general's office did say was the the Civil Remedies Act was used to seize the vehicles. Since the offences were committed in 2006 and the amendments to apparently cover their tracks weren't made until 2007, this looks pretty suspicious to me.

Regardless of whether they crushed the vehicles after a court order or not, the vehicles were seized illegally in the first place and as such, the judge's order was wrong.

Another vehicle seizure authority that has been out for years.

HTA 217

Detaining vehicle when arrest is made

(4) A police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act, making an arrest without warrant, may detain the motor vehicle with which the offence was committed until the final disposition of any prosecution under this Act or under the Criminal Code (Canada), but the motor vehicle may be released on security for its production being given to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace or judge

That's the Highway Traffic Act.

The information released to the pubic from the Attorney General's Office said the seizure was conducted under the Civil Remedies Act.

I believe there is a time limit which applies. You can't go on flip flopping about which act charges are going to be laid under forever.

No mention was made of the Highway Traffic Act.

Of course the media doesn't disclose all of the details and that's one of the pitfalls of trying to investigate a legal matter when you're a private citizen. You just don't have access to all of the necessary documentation and no one is paying you to do it. And initially, no one cares either.

So you go out on a limb trying to pluck the fruit with one hand while applying the saw with the other to the branch you're sitting on. It's a race to see whether you can get the fruit and get off the branch before it breaks.

But if you don't make the attempt, maybe there are injustices committed.

Based on all that's gone on here, regardless of anything, I think it's pretty clear that the law has a lot of problems as it stands and if it continues to stand, is going to cause a whole lot more in the future that will be regretted by police officers and the public alike.

There is no excuse for a law that is written this badly and no reason not to fix it.

gullyfourmyle wrote:

That's the Highway Traffic Act.

The information released to the pubic from the Attorney General's Office said the seizure was conducted under the Civil Remedies Act.

I believe there is a time limit which applies. You can't go on flip flopping about which act charges are going to be laid under forever.

No mention was made of the Highway Traffic Act..

If property is seized via HTA 217 or seized under the Criminal Code we always have to do a return to a Justice. Which is we have to type up a report with the synopsis and the reasons the property is to be held, we bring that before the Justice and swear in that. The Justice then has to agree with the seizure, otherwise property will be returned. If it is going to be an extended period, greater than 90 days, we have to reapply for a continuance of holding the item.

gullyfourmyle wrote:

Based on all that's gone on here, regardless of anything, I think it's pretty clear that the law has a lot of problems as it stands and if it continues to stand, is going to cause a whole lot more in the future that will be regretted by police officers and the public alike.

There is no excuse for a law that is written this badly and no reason not to fix it.

Gully.........sit down.........seriously......better sit down.......grab both arms of the chair..........ready..........deep breath.........................wait........

I totally agree with you

Hwybear, I think you just passed another credibility test with flying colours.

Too bad you can't bottle common sense and sell it. We have politicians who need at least a quart each. You'd be rich.

See what this forum does

That was a good post and you make most of my points.

Thanks. I also tried looking for the specific reference about the car-crushing but couldn't find it, so I was going strictly off memory. Now that you've mentioned it... I also remember Michael Bryant saying somewhere that they think they could crush the car before a conviction is entered!!!

If property is seized via HTA 217 or seized under the Criminal Code we always have to do a return to a Justice... The Justice then has to agree with the seizure...

Which is perfectly fine. Sounds like "show cause"?

Too bad you can't bottle common sense and sell it. We have politicians who need at least a quart each.

More like fifteen gallons each. [/quote]