Search found 888 matches

Interesting. I would have said that a three-point turn on the roadway is a u-turn but that once you use a driveway and leave the road then the actions are split. But then I don't have a law degree !

So you have now been informed of the charge against you in advance of the trial, giving you time to prepare a defence.

I wouldn't take that car if it was free !

I also think it's ludicrous. The only bilingual province is New Brunswick so I could see the argument there but everywhere else is unilingual. It's funny how often bilingual people forget one language when it suits them - I had the same thing happen to me when I was in Nunavut and arrested a well known commentator on tv (in English). Suddenly he ...

I don't think it's a fatal error though. If there was no other vehicle involved then the case can be made at trial that (b) was not relevant.

The section does refer to a stop sign but adds the element that you must have failed to yield to a vehicle

Stop at through highway
136 (1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,

(a) shall stop his or her vehicle or street car at a marked stop line or, if none, then immediately before entering the nearest ...

They are required to attend but they dont always. If it is serious enough the Justice can issue a warrant but for an HTA offence it normally gets withdrawn.

They get mileage but no pay.

What offence ?

You state in your title that you were not speeding yet in your post you say you were going 20 over ?

If the post is correct and you are offered just a speeding ticket instead of the stunt then you may want to consider taking it.

If he has evidence that you were doing 100 over the speed limit Im surprised he didnt hit you with a criminal ...

They will probably offer you 49 over and you should bite their hand off !

Then you have been very unfortunate.

Don't confuse obstruction with right to silence. Obstruction might be telling police you haven't seen someone when, in fact, they're in the house with you.

In this case as has been said - copper saw your (very) poor driving, hit the brakes, then realised he couldn't safely get you. Remember, you have to be lucky all the time, he only has to be ...

No. It's all over and done with.

Exactly. This is no defence.

'Officer Bubbles' was an idiot. But so are those who are disrespectful to officers doing their job. It's a two way street. The posts above saying that you are better to do what's asked and complain later if you must are bang on. To not get out of the car when told to do so is not going to end well. If you felt you shouldn't have been asked then ...

That's a good outcome and very lucky there weren't more injuries or even a fatality.

Did anyone else make a report ? Did they caution you ? Statements made through mandatory reporting requirements of the HTA are generally not admissible as evidence against you.

Do you honestly think you could hit a car 300 meters away in the dark moving at between 80 to 121km /hr with a gun? I don't even think a sniper can make that shot most of the time from the ground nevermind an overweight police officer that's very unskilled compared to the sniper sitting in an upright position possibly with a donut or coffee in ...

There's not much panning involved when the cross hairs are a licence plate of a vehicle coming straight at you.

FOV

Does your friend's phone track their whereabouts ? The iPhone has that feature (which has caught out a few cheating spouses I'm sure!)

If they were able to show that they had just arrived and testified they were in the process of paying for a permit then they might get lucky.

Presumably by the time she found the ticket she already had a valid ...

It's going to be tough. Whoever left their lane, the collision obviously occurred close to the lane line so to be able to prove which vehicle crossed will be tough. If there are two people saying it was you it's going to be hard for you to prove otherwise.

Tickets while you were waiting to pay? That's crazy

Well good for you and, to be honest, shame on the officer. If you are going to lay a charge then it should proceed...otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time and giving you grief for no reason.

They have to provide them to you. Just showing you is not sufficient.

I was responding to a lights and sirens call with a rookie who was doing the driving. En route, the call was cancelled so we canned the lights. Right ahead was a Tim Hortons and the rookie said he wanted a coffee. I made him drive past and we doubled back because what would people think if we were thundering along with lights and sirens and then ...

I agree with you that there is no reason to be driving at 135 unless, well, there is a reason ! Having said that people do strange things when they have a cruiser come up behind them with lights on so sometimes I would drive faster than the limit but without my lights on to get to a call quicker. It may be that a victim is in distress after an ...

Ah so apparently you didn't want to get back on track and discuss the cases under discussion. OK.

In reality Argyll, as it relates to bias, we are both very biased. However, I am upfront about mine. I don't wish personal harm to befall officers but I don't wish them a nice day or a peaceful life so that I can look objective or to irritate them whatever the case may be.

Once again you bestow upon yourself the ability to know why other people ...

Some of what you say makes sense however it is clouded by your ever present chip.

I don't care if you win or lose. I didn't even care when I was the charging officer. My job was to present the facts as I saw them. If they weren't enough to convict in the eyes of the court then so be it - no skin off my nose.

The JP refused to accept your case ...