How would you react on the spot....(bill 203)?

[Squadz]

Doesn't happen or hasn't happened yet?

It will never happen. Ever.

[82Seca750]

People who are doing nothing wrong, just tootling home, humming Swunderfulllll Smarveloussssss dont get pulled over for 203. LOL. Ever. But good story, and i'm sure the firefight over your 20 year old bike would be....well...... Swunderfulllll.......Smarvelous.....
.

you obviously don't know me or my rides....

funny...I didn't see a peep outta you in the Mahoney-Bruer thread.....shocker

[dankyyz]

you obviously don't know me or my rides....

funny...I didn't see a peep outta you in the Mahoney-Bruer thread.....shocker

No i read it. One guy. Bad cop. Happens.

Corruption happens. To suggest that we safegaurd all laws against such abuse is kinda crazy. No one has a problem with loopholes that allows them to pay a little less tax, park where they shouldnt, get their kids into "better" schools and so on.

The idea that "creating legislation that is open to corruption should be avoided..." is similarily crazy. ******* will take advantage of any/everything they can. Its more an issue of human nature, than bad legislation. But people who have a bone to pick on something, will definatly jump on such a story to presumably bolster a counterpoint. Also human nature.

The reason i didnt post on it was that it's an ongoing circle jerk argument. I just end up sounding like a broken record, and getting banned.

[Brian P]

^^ simple fix. "DUE PROCESS"

[camber]

No i read it. One guy. Bad cop. Happens.

We don't know that... There is no oversight on HTA 172 and the due process safeguard has been removed.

[82Seca750]

No i read it. One guy. Bad cop. Happens.

Corruption happens. To suggest that we safegaurd all laws against such abuse is kinda crazy.

who's suggesting "all laws"....the uproar is about "this law"....this is the new law, and the new trend of huge roadside penalties with no recourse for the accused brought to you by the save-the-children nanny-state

it was predicted that bringing in such draconian legislation had abuse written all over it - and that prediction has become 100% true....so time to stop anymore of this nonsense.....go back and fix the problems with this law (namely the upfront seizure) and never let any of these law makers try this kinda stunt again

[dankyyz]

My point is that this law, like MANY others (even those prior to this draconian REVOLUTION) are open to corruption. And if you listen to the conspiracy theorists on this, and other, sites, have benn abused by PoPo for years.

So....

Bad people do bad things with power they cant handle. It happens. Has in the past, and will in the future.

If you think putting more power in the hands of someone who was THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED is a bad thing. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm AGAINST the flagrent missuse of our legal system by spending MILLIONS of our tax dollars letting some squid argue away in court, at the cost of not just the room/judge/chairs/tables/airconditioning/metal detectors/ stenographer, but also the guy who laid the charge in the first place.

Let the guy who was there make a heavier call is really what it comes down to. Somehow a judge who was not there, did not hear the tone/demeanor of the accused, hear the arguments and just, in the end, settle to a lessor charge. Not because he was less guilty, but because of the difference in fine.

F THAT! Make an omlette and break a few eggs, leave cops on the street, and not in the courts defending the right call they made 2 years ago.

who's suggesting "all laws"....the uproar is about "this law"....this is the new law, and the new trend of huge roadside penalties with no recourse for the accused brought to you by the save-the-children nanny-state

it was predicted that bringing in such draconian legislation had abuse written all over it - and that prediction has become 100% true....so time to stop anymore of this nonsense.....go back and fix the problems with this law (namely the upfront seizure) and never let any of these law makers try this kinda stunt again

[Rob MacLennan]

My point is that this law, like MANY others (even those prior to this draconian REVOLUTION) are open to corruption. And if you listen to the conspiracy theorists on this, and other, sites, have benn abused by PoPo for years.

So....

Bad people do bad things with power they cant handle. It happens. Has in the past, and will in the future.

If you think putting more power in the hands of someone who was THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED is a bad thing. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm AGAINST the flagrent missuse of our legal system by spending MILLIONS of our tax dollars letting some squid argue away in court, at the cost of not just the room/judge/chairs/tables/airconditioning/metal detectors/ stenographer, but also the guy who laid the charge in the first place.

Let the guy who was there make a heavier call is really what it comes down to. Somehow a judge who was not there, did not hear the tone/demeanor of the accused, hear the arguments and just, in the end, settle to a lessor charge. Not because he was less guilty, but because of the difference in fine.

F THAT! Make an omlette and break a few eggs, leave cops on the street, and not in the courts defending the right call they made 2 years ago.

There's a massive difference between laws that are abused and creating laws that are, by their very design, seemingly almost meant to be abused. That's why due process of law should be virtually inviolate.

“Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” William Blackstone. It is upon such ideals that our legal system is based.

[82Seca750]

My point is that this law, like MANY others (even those prior to this draconian REVOLUTION) are open to corruption. And if you listen to the conspiracy theorists on this, and other, sites, have benn abused by PoPo for years.

So....

Bad people do bad things with power they cant handle. It happens. Has in the past, and will in the future.

If you think putting more power in the hands of someone who was THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED is a bad thing. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm AGAINST the flagrent missuse of our legal system by spending MILLIONS of our tax dollars letting some squid argue away in court, at the cost of not just the room/judge/chairs/tables/airconditioning/metal detectors/ stenographer, but also the guy who laid the charge in the first place.

Let the guy who was there make a heavier call is really what it comes down to. Somehow a judge who was not there, did not hear the tone/demeanor of the accused, hear the arguments and just, in the end, settle to a lessor charge. Not because he was less guilty, but because of the difference in fine.

F THAT! Make an omlette and break a few eggs, leave cops on the street, and not in the courts defending the right call they made 2 years ago.

you wanna do a reach-around on the justice system because you feel the justice system is broken?

you must adore Fantino

the justice system sure ain't perfect....but it's there so multiple people can determine someone's fate without the heat of emotion that's there at the alleged scene.....and even so....when you're the accused, the deck is already stacked against you - don't believe me?....go sit in a criminal court and watch the way all parties treat the alleged in the prisoner's box....dude is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty...not happening

interesting how you don't like wasted tax dollars - and yet you applaud a new bar-lowering law that whenever a charge is made, it goes to court

and now we have the Police investigating their own because they apparently couldn't handle the new found power and were abusing it.....we've had Police cruiser's seized (ahem - parked I mean) Fire trucks seized....garbage trucks seized

and every cop going to court on all of the 13,000+ charges is making overtime

if you despise pissing away tax dollars....then you should despise 172

[Rob MacLennan]

if you despise pissing away tax dollars....then you should despise 172

... if for no more reason that it's unconstitutional, on its face, and is going to cost a lot more money when a challenge makes it to The Supreme Court.

[Angus Argyle]

I'll tell you what I would do - I would cry like bibo and hope that the cop felt soo sorry for me he would drop the charge to a lesser speed.

I would cry so hard, so very hard...

It would go something like this:

[cbr_rr]

People who are doing nothing wrong, just tootling home, humming Swunderfulllll Smarveloussssss dont get pulled over for 203. LOL. Ever.

It never happens. LOL. EVER! It just can't. But then when it did, well then that's only one cop, not all of them. So yes, it DOES happen. So far they only caught one.

What are you going to say if they catch another? It can't ever happen? Well, except that once. Ok, twice.

Why do we have the court system at all then? Obviously the only people getting off are doing so on technicalities, just do away with it entirely

[82Seca750]

... if for no more reason that it's unconstitutional, on its face, and is going to cost a lot more money when a challenge makes it to The Supreme Court.

I'd like to know how much the Gov't gave away in untendered contracts JUST for the new roadside signs alone

I'll bet they ****** away millions on signs that are worth thousands

[GP_RZ]

you bend over and let him have his way with your onion ring.....nothing you can do....just strap down hand take the ride!

Let's say for argument's sake that you are pulled over and dinged with stunt driving. Now let's say that it really wasn't stunt driving and the police officer is simply exercising his power over you, which WILL cost you a lot of money in the long run even if you were to "win" your case.

You are pulled over, officer comes and gives you a summons for stunt driving and calls a tow truck and impounds your car.

What can YOU do at this point if you truly feel you are innocent? You will never get the impound fees back or the insurance hike from having a suspended license.

Can you call the supervisor of the officer to come and evaluate what happen and lay down the final verdict with a chance of dropping the whole thing if he for whatever reason is convinced that the officer is in the wrong (highly unlikely). I am sure that there must be SOMETHING that could potentially lead to getting off this if you are in fact innocent. Any ideas?

Once your car is hooked up, it's pretty much over, but in the meantime I figure that there must be a means of getting the original decision revoked by a higher power.

[Icbones]

90% of the stops under this bill are for speeding 50 over (just looked at the stats). How many cases are we really talking about where people are absolutely innocent and the police are being overzealous?

The stats also seem to point out a decrease in fatalities and an increased awareness that excessive speeding isn't worth it. Surely those are good things?

It really seems to me that if you don't do 50 over you don't have too much to worry about.

Just a question. 90% of actual charges, or is it 90% of actual convictions that are for 50+ ?

[Icbones]

I actually don't have a problem with red-light cameras IF IF IF IF they are implemented properly - i.e. without using an abnormally short yellow light duration in order to create more tickets and revenue. This situation has been happening all over the place: Camera gets put in (generally involving an agreement with a private contractor), someone likes the revenue, municipality/contractor get greedy and shorten the duration of the yellow to get more money. Citizenship rebels (rightly!), and either the camera goes away or the duration of the yellow gets lengthened - which reduces the amount of revenue to the extent that it's no longer economically feasible, and the camera goes away.

OR
http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyo...rning-british/

[CruisnGrrl]

No i read it. One guy. Bad cop. Happens.

Corruption happens. To suggest that we safegaurd all laws against such abuse is kinda crazy. No one has a problem with loopholes that allows them to pay a little less tax, park where they shouldnt, get their kids into "better" schools and so on.

The idea that "creating legislation that is open to corruption should be avoided..." is similarily crazy. ******* will take advantage of any/everything they can. Its more an issue of human nature, than bad legislation. But people who have a bone to pick on something, will definatly jump on such a story to presumably bolster a counterpoint. Also human nature.

The reason i didnt post on it was that it's an ongoing circle jerk argument. I just end up sounding like a broken record, and getting banned.

Can't be the only bad cop http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum...ad.php?t=91377

I could have taken one for the team but... it isn't worth the risk to me.