Stunting Charge.. Need Opinion

[AMG4ME]

Hey all I have a friend that was just charged with stunting... but here is the kicker... it was 5 oclock and where he was charged was a intersection that is heavy with traffic at that time. Bumper to bumper traffic. He was already stopped when the cop came up due to traffic. The Officer said that he heard the engine reving and then seen the front wheel come off the ground. The officer came up from pretty far behind in traffic and because there was traffic it wasn't like anyone was moving too fast.

The statment given by the rider when pulled over was that the bike was running really rough and that the rider was just trying to keep the bike running and when it happened the bike was about to stall and when the last "rev" happened it caught and the bike took off.

The suspension lifted but the riders tire never came off of the ground. There was a witness following in a truck behind that didn't stop and later said that the rider never did a wheelie. Unfortunatly the witness was a co worker. They had just both previously left work which was only litteraly 1 minute away from where the ticket was issued so the bike was still cold.

After the officer charged the rider... the officer did put in his notes that the rider was very co operative and very easy to deal with.

Just need an opinion or some ideas on this case... first appearance is very soon as it is a smaller town but thinking it will go to trial. A Hwy lawyer will be contact but the more information the better and I am sure a few people have been through this charge or know someone that may have usefull information on this.

All info is much appreciated everyone...

[GayManLoveIsOK]

co-worker as witness will be important, talk to lawyer, good luck.

[Rob MacLennan]

This is the actual wording of the applicable section:

3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.

If the wheel didn't come off the ground, then he isn't guilty. If he didn't INTEND for the wheel to come off the ground, but it did, then he isn't guilty.

[spankayf]

Another ridiculous charge under 172... even with a low conviction rate the cops continue to charge given the up front penalty of impound and towing.

We should have the right to recoup these charges from the province

[ddusseld]

How do you prove or disprove intent? The cop says that the wheel came off of the ground. Presumably this happened. The defendant says is was an unintended wheelie. Does the duration of the "stunt" come in to play to prove intent? How does a judge rule on a situation such as this? If you testify that you had an unintended wheelie could you not be charged with driving without due care and attention?..

This is the actual wording of the applicable section:

3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.

If the wheel didn't come off the ground, then he isn't guilty. If he didn't INTEND for the wheel to come off the ground, but it did, then he isn't guilty.

[MarcosSantiago]

How do you prove or disprove intent? The cop says that the wheel came off of the ground. Presumably this happened. The defendant says is was an unintended wheelie. Does the duration of the "stunt" come in to play to prove intent? How does a judge rule on a situation such as this? If you testify that you had an unintended wheelie could you not be charged with driving without due care and attention?..

The law was intended to stop crazy mofos doing wheelies on Ontario's streets and hwys (at least that is what they said).

The wording is very clear, "Driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground" and DRIVING means that the motorcycle is MOVING or TRAVELLING with one wheel on the air.

On bumper to bumper traffic, driving a motorcycle with one wheel on the air is not possible. Doesn't matter what the officer thinks he saw, Newton's laws still apply.

The rider is going to say (I quote the OP) "The suspension lifted but the riders tire never came off of the ground."

The witness is going to say "the tire never came off of the ground"

The cop should not twist the law like that. The charge is not stuntin'

[cantello]

The big question is intent, did the rider have intent in this situation, probably not, Though police are trained observers and their word is taken over yours, your witness will be the backbone to your defense if they state your tire did not leave the ground. But the kicker here is the word intent again, with you revving the engine (because it was running rough and catching on the last rev) same might say the intent was there, take the bike to a shop and get the engine checked out, this will prove that it was running rough, and therefore reducing the intend and putting more credibility to your story, then it would be up to the judge to decide if you should have been on the road with the running condition of your bike, though stunting can also include a rapid take off as well, and the officer might also state that as well, get the forclosure

[MarcosSantiago]

And another point:

• The rider has to pay thousands in towing, storage, taxi rides, and legal costs.
• The witness has to waste 1 or 2 days off work without any compensation
• The court system wastes thousands dealing with this matter.
• At the end, the rider may win. But it was such a humongous lose of sleep, money, time, and effort.

And... do you know who doesn't lose anything?
The officer

Actually, he may earn some $$ (overtime), so he is just going to keep laying charges like this.


HAs Ontario turned into Bizarro World or what?

[Rob MacLennan]

How do you prove or disprove intent? The cop says that the wheel came off of the ground. Presumably this happened. The defendant says is was an unintended wheelie. Does the duration of the "stunt" come in to play to prove intent? How does a judge rule on a situation such as this? If you testify that you had an unintended wheelie could you not be charged with driving without due care and attention?..

Difficult all-around but the onus is on The Crown to both show that the incident actually took place, and that it was with intent.

[AMG4ME]

Thanks all for your opinions and views my friend really appreciates it all. Feel free to post all opinions every point of view is all good.

[GP_RZ]

Tell your buddy to get leagal help, if not tell him to buy a tub of lube for when he gets the shaft! Redline helped me get this thrown out, that day the stunting charge was the least of my worries, anyhow stunting was thrown out and other charge was dealt with.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35445429/S...isclosure-Copy

[kellen]

well that cop finally got the feather in his cap.

[GP_RZ]

not sure what he got in his hat........I was happy as a pig in poop though only thing i was not happy with was the $4700 dent in my wallet for representation on both cases and inpound fees

[BOOSTEDSI]

Stunting charges are bs, if your speeding ur speeding, speeding and stunting have nothing in common, The gov should honestly catch real criminals , Lets see how many unsolved murders there are, no they care nope, if your doing 50+ man your worst than a rapist, and serial killer combined.
I am in the mist of a b.s charge, And storage fee so far $700, legal fees so far $1000.and $150 for new licence.

My lawyer said the crown loves to make an example of a motorcyclist. Fudge how many riders die every year from Cagers smashing into us, and saying they never saw a bike coming.
I think the law is in effect to punish the rich for being able to by the toys we want, Honestly I could have out ran the cop. but im not a criminal, but holy lord, speed 50+
and you might as well have killed someone, at least they give you a ride to the station not leave you wherever the fudge you are.

[ddusseld]

I believe I understand the intent of the law..

But I don't see how intent can be proved or disproved. Riding a wheelie for a mile is obvious intent. Doing a wheelie for 2 feet could be either accidental or purposeful. This type of ambiguity makes the stunting law even more dangerous and open to interpretation.
A small wheelie can be done in bumper to bumper traffic. Kind of stupid but it can be done.

The law was intended to stop crazy mofos doing wheelies on Ontario's streets and hwys (at least that is what they said).

The wording is very clear, "Driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground" and DRIVING means that the motorcycle is MOVING or TRAVELLING with one wheel on the air.

On bumper to bumper traffic, driving a motorcycle with one wheel on the air is not possible. Doesn't matter what the officer thinks he saw, Newton's laws still apply.

The rider is going to say (I quote the OP) "The suspension lifted but the riders tire never came off of the ground."

The witness is going to say "the tire never came off of the ground"

The cop should not twist the law like that. The charge is not stuntin'

[Rob MacLennan]

I believe I understand the intent of the law..

But I don't see how intent can be proved or disproved. Riding a wheelie for a mile is obvious intent. Doing a wheelie for 2 feet could be either accidental or purposeful. This type of ambiguity makes the stunting law even more dangerous and open to interpretation.
A small wheelie can be done in bumper to bumper traffic. Kind of stupid but it can be done.

I've seen someone pull up and carry wheelies for some distance, at low speeds, on a busy 427 northbound. It can be done.

That it was his intent was rather obvious though

[ddusseld]

The fact it happened at all will almost always be a he said she said kind of thing unless there are witnesses or the police have a video.

Outside of really obvious intent such as a long drawn out wheelie the crown should never be able to prove intent. Unless of course Fantino has developed mind reading technology..

Difficult all-around but the onus is on The Crown to both show that the incident actually took place, and that it was with intent.

[Rob MacLennan]

The fact it happened at all will almost always be a he said she said kind of thing unless there are witnesses or the police have a video.

Outside of really obvious intent such as a long drawn out wheelie the crown should never be able to prove intent. Unless of course Fantino has developed mind reading technology..

When Fantino's scientists failed to develop mind reading technology, he switched to theology. He has determined that we are all guilty of Original Traffic Sin and must repent, or prove our innocence.

[FiReSTaRT]

That's going into my sig.. Thanks Rob

@OP: Tell your buddy to get legal representation. It looks like he has a pretty good case and I'd probably go with Redline on this instead of hiring an actual lawyer. He'd save a few bucks and they are a very capable service.

[Squadz]

Wish I knew how to do a wheelie