|
|
|
SIU investigation of motorcycle running from cops..
- Thread starter kiwi
- Start date
We already have manslaughter for that. Looking the US for punitive laws is a slippery slope. It's amazing how easy it is to kill a person in many states, with no penalty.
-Maverick-
Well-known member
This issue seems to be panning out just as I suspected. A speeding ticket is not worth killing someone over:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a9096/why-high-speed-police-chases-are-going-away-15532838/
There was a day when police would shoot out your tires... literally the wild west. Times change.
NO CHASE states:
http://bfy.tw/run
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a9096/why-high-speed-police-chases-are-going-away-15532838/
There was a day when police would shoot out your tires... literally the wild west. Times change.
NO CHASE states:
http://bfy.tw/run
Last edited:
As I have said, I believe s172 should be repealed. But it is here.
I would challenge anyone here to post a single verifiable instance of someone simply riding at 20 km/h over has been hit instead with a s172. Trying to use s172 as an excuse to run is simply trying to justify the act of running. There has to date been ONE officer charged, (even though the case fell apart), with abusing s172 on a regular basis. There is likely 25,000 officers in Ontario, (over 13,000 just betweene TPS and OPP). Also feel free to post ANY case of anyone sentenced to 6 months imprisionment for a s172 conviction, (that didn't involve a collsion with serious injuries or death).
Your chance of getting a s172 for simple speeding, (I am using the 20 km over as has been used thus far in the thread), is as about as great as getting hit by a transit bus on your bike. It happens but it is not the normal. Riders were running LONG before s172 was even considered. Hell I chased riders in the 70's and 80's...lol Most rider pursuits I was involved in were for minor, (10 - 25 km) over the limit.
FYI there is more than ONE guy who tows and impounds s172 vehicles.
I would challenge anyone here to post a single verifiable instance of someone simply riding at 20 km/h over has been hit instead with a s172. Trying to use s172 as an excuse to run is simply trying to justify the act of running. There has to date been ONE officer charged, (even though the case fell apart), with abusing s172 on a regular basis. There is likely 25,000 officers in Ontario, (over 13,000 just betweene TPS and OPP). Also feel free to post ANY case of anyone sentenced to 6 months imprisionment for a s172 conviction, (that didn't involve a collsion with serious injuries or death).
Your chance of getting a s172 for simple speeding, (I am using the 20 km over as has been used thus far in the thread), is as about as great as getting hit by a transit bus on your bike. It happens but it is not the normal. Riders were running LONG before s172 was even considered. Hell I chased riders in the 70's and 80's...lol Most rider pursuits I was involved in were for minor, (10 - 25 km) over the limit.
FYI there is more than ONE guy who tows and impounds s172 vehicles.
That article loses credibility with me ith this statement.
Before restrictive-pursuit policies, often the worst thing that officers found at the end of a chase was a suspended license, an ashtray full of seeds and stems, or empty beer cans in the pickup bed.
Apparently to Popular mechanics drinking and driving is not an issue whatsoever. Did you read the part of the article wich points out police don't pursue for only a minor infraction (broken tail light). But they DO chase for other more serious crimes. So how fast does it need to be before it is considered serious?
Also some of the links in the "no chase" search actually state the policy is NOT a "no chase policy" but rather before an officer can continue a pursuit he must as they do here assess the risk associated with the pursuit. In other words for a broken tail light the officer shouldn't pursue a vehcile in the downtown core at high noon at 100+ MPH
No one has stated that a simple speeding ticket is worth "killing someone over" Instead we have said speeding does NOT justify running. But it plays out better when using theatrics to villify to officer rather than the person who made the CHOICE to run
Before restrictive-pursuit policies, often the worst thing that officers found at the end of a chase was a suspended license, an ashtray full of seeds and stems, or empty beer cans in the pickup bed.
Apparently to Popular mechanics drinking and driving is not an issue whatsoever. Did you read the part of the article wich points out police don't pursue for only a minor infraction (broken tail light). But they DO chase for other more serious crimes. So how fast does it need to be before it is considered serious?
Also some of the links in the "no chase" search actually state the policy is NOT a "no chase policy" but rather before an officer can continue a pursuit he must as they do here assess the risk associated with the pursuit. In other words for a broken tail light the officer shouldn't pursue a vehcile in the downtown core at high noon at 100+ MPH
No one has stated that a simple speeding ticket is worth "killing someone over" Instead we have said speeding does NOT justify running. But it plays out better when using theatrics to villify to officer rather than the person who made the CHOICE to run
Last edited:
PLau
Well-known member
Seeds??? Now why would anyone have seeds in their car unless they're sunflower seeds...
Maybe the driver was Johhny Appleseed??? LMAO
No, that's a completely different charge. Look at my previous post that describes "felony murder."
RedDogDarren
Well-known member
My favourite post of the thread, one that I actually bothered to read and less than 5000 words. Well done.
So my brother did NOT get a S172 for doing 151 (that magic number) on the 407ETR?
I did not have to pick him up?
I did not meet the storage owner, and he did not show me his 458 and Gallardo (both bought used off of s172 "clients")?
He did not pay $200 a day storage, a $5000 fine?
He did not have to pay $6800 in legal fees?
He did not have to pay +$6000 a year in insurance for the next 5 years?
WTF. Everyone knows someone charged under s172 who has gone through this. I watched him go through the procedure and we were both convinced there was a stench around this, and it started with a guy on a deserted highway speeding in an expensive car.
Funny how this magic this magic number of 151 km/hr pops up again and again.
Surely a coincidence.
http://www.simcoe.com/news-story/5651228-meaford-driver-caught-at-151-km-hr-car-impounded/
Pretty sure if someone died as the result of an out of control speeder, the charges would go far above just the highway traffic act? There were manslaughter charges in the era of all those import car road racing incidents in north Toronto.
Dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death; up to 14 years in prison. It doesn't cover incidental deaths, though, that aren't directly attributable to the person who instigates the incident. Felony murder does.
|
|
|
|
|