Cam Seized by Outaouais Police

[adamkret]

They put themselves in danger, nobody else. This is called freedom, something we do not have anymore regardless of how many times you sang the national anthem in school. The problem is here that cowards are intimidated by masculine activity, and want the police state to step in. Fighting, riding motorcycles, knives, guns, racism, whatever. Everything that men did in the past is now scary and bad. This is fundamentally one of the reasons why we are in decline. Anything which going against natural law is subject to decline.

Not that i am a fan of cameras, bragging, or being too much of an idiot in traffic.

 

[zeniceguy]

I have a letre bike and crest over 200kph all the Time. Only takes a few seconds

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk

 

[jc100]

They put themselves in danger, nobody else. This is called freedom, something we do not have anymore regardless of how many times you sang the national anthem in school. The problem is here that cowards are intimidated by masculine activity, and want the police state to step in. Fighting, riding motorcycles, knives, guns, racism, whatever. Everything that men did in the past is now scary and bad. This is fundamentally one of the reasons why we are in decline. Anything which going against natural law is subject to decline.

Not that i am a fan of cameras, bragging, or being too much of an idiot in traffic.

breaking the the law is freedom? Where do you live...and do you have a big screen TV....I need to feel free.

 

[Gryphon]

They put themselves in danger, nobody else. This is called freedom, something we do not have anymore regardless of how many times you sang the national anthem in school. The problem is here that cowards are intimidated by masculine activity, and want the police state to step in. Fighting, riding motorcycles, knives, guns, racism, whatever. Everything that men did in the past is now scary and bad. This is fundamentally one of the reasons why we are in decline. Anything which going against natural law is subject to decline.

I'm sorry - who is "we" (who are in decline)?
And "masculine activity"? Like fighting, knives, guns, racism!?
Dude I don't believe I wish to be part of your "we"!
If this is how you perceive masculinity... it's pretty superficial.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

They put themselves in danger, nobody else. This is called freedom, something we do not have anymore regardless of how many times you sang the national anthem in school. The problem is here that cowards are intimidated by masculine activity, and want the police state to step in. Fighting, riding motorcycles, knives, guns, racism, whatever. Everything that men did in the past is now scary and bad. This is fundamentally one of the reasons why we are in decline. Anything which going against natural law is subject to decline.

Not that i am a fan of cameras, bragging, or being too much of an idiot in traffic.

A 180 Kmh bullet puts other road users at risk. The difference here is that where in the past a rider might have been charged with only the one or two infractions that the officer had actually witnessed, in this case there was a running log of dozens of infractions. It's like being pulled over by an officer and then copping to everything questionable that you did from the moment that you left your driveway, without being asked.

Watch the first episode of South Park's 17th season for an explanation of the problem.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Here's some related information, about a case that was mentioned in this thread; the BC dangerous operation video case. The upshot is he got off:

http://canadamotoguide.com/2013/10/25/bc-speeding-suspect-acquitted/

.... but the bike was seized under forfeiture laws and sold. I'm not a fan of how such forfeiture laws are written as you don't need to be found guilty of anything, in order to lose your stuff. I have to wonder if he might have been found guilty if the bike had still been around, to be submitted into evidence?

 

[XenoVibe]

They are idiots and make us all look bad. Pissing off cagers, they could potentially take it out on the 99%ers. Hell knows their view of whos the bad guy is significantly ****ed up since the New York incident.

These two tards didn't hurt anyone this time but a 400lb vehicle traveling 200km can do serious damage, especially if it gets airborne and ends up going over the centre barrier.

 

[nfq]

Here's some related information, about a case that was mentioned in this thread; the BC dangerous operation video case. The upshot is he got off:

http://canadamotoguide.com/2013/10/25/bc-speeding-suspect-acquitted/

.... but the bike was seized under forfeiture laws and sold. I'm not a fan of how such forfeiture laws are written as you don't need to be found guilty of anything, in order to lose your stuff. I have to wonder if he might have been found guilty if the bike had still been around, to be submitted into evidence?

That's the thing. I found it silly they got rid of the bike before the trial was done.

Question now is, he's acquitted but they sold off his bike, where's the money? Shouldn't he get back his 'bike'? or in this case some compensation for them selling it off?

 

[nfq]

They are idiots and make us all look bad. Pissing off cagers, they could potentially take it out on the 99%ers. Hell knows their view of whos the bad guy is significantly ****ed up since the New York incident.

These two tards didn't hurt anyone this time but a 400lb vehicle traveling 200km can do serious damage, especially if it gets airborne and ends up going over the centre barrier.

You're right. It's amazing none of this was going on before people had cameras. It's like overnight everyone realized they could go faster than the speed limit!
As for their video, it's pretty tame, even compared to 401 rush hour traffic.

 

[XenoVibe]

Sad how nothing happens to them while a few AGATT riders got seriously injured or killed in the past few weeks.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

That's the thing. I found it silly they got rid of the bike before the trial was done.

Question now is, he's acquitted but they sold off his bike, where's the money? Shouldn't he get back his 'bike'? or in this case some compensation for them selling it off?

I'll have to check into the law that was used in this instance, but it sounds like mom's bike is gone-gone.

You're right. It's amazing none of this was going on before people had cameras. It's like overnight everyone realized they could go faster than the speed limit!
As for their video, it's pretty tame, even compared to 401 rush hour traffic.

What happened, overnight, is that people lost all sense of propriety and shame. Back in the day.......... soooooome people would do this sort of stuff, but wouldn't do it where they thought that they would ever be seen. Now people pack their witnesses for the prosecution along with them, and then advertise the evidence in a public place. It's as if a rider, in 1985, went for a ride along Cedar Springs and brought a camera crew along to drive behind him, then posted the results on Rogers 10.

 

[nfq]

I'll have to check into the law that was used in this instance, but it sounds like mom's bike is gone-gone.



What happened, overnight, is that people lost all sense of propriety and shame. Back in the day.......... soooooome people would do this sort of stuff, but wouldn't do it where they thought that they would ever be seen. Now people pack their witnesses for the prosecution along with them, and then advertise the evidence in a public place. It's as if a rider, in 1985, went for a ride along Cedar Springs and brought a camera crew along to drive behind him, then posted the results on Rogers 10.

haha yup.

Also another thing is population density, way back when, when you were out in the sticks, it was nothing but you and open road and the odd deer.
Now, even the 'sticks' have condos and townhomes lol

 

[veno78]

(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=C-lai)

I'm in tears. It's so true.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

haha yup.

Also another thing is population density, way back when, when you were out in the sticks, it was nothing but you and open road and the odd deer.
Now, even the 'sticks' have condos and townhomes lol

True enough. .......Those guys wereall alone on the road and if they did a hundred and eighty K, just north of Beeton, then there was no one around for miles to see..... them.

But that doesn't mitigate against the basic poor choice of considering where you are, when that little voice in the back of your head whispers, "I aim to misbehave."

 

[EaZ8]

so let me get this straight... they want to take private video without a warrant, but they also want to be able to knock out iphone camera capability when something is happening(or about to happen) they feel they dont want filmed so it cant be used against them.

http://news.msn.com/rumors/rumor-cops-can-block-iphone-camera-and-wi-fi

i feel the whole gopro being seized and video used against you should not be legal. same way that a spouse can not be forced to testify against you. they may have witnessed the entire crime but because they are married to you they have no legal obligation to assist the government, and they dont even have to comment on the situation...so since i would own the video i would refuse to testify against myself.

 

[coyo]

so let me get this straight... they want to take private video without a warrant, but they also want to be able to knock out iphone camera capability when something is happening(or about to happen) they feel they dont want filmed so it cant be used against them.

http://news.msn.com/rumors/rumor-cops-can-block-iphone-camera-and-wi-fi

i feel the whole gopro being seized and video used against you should not be legal. same way that a spouse can not be forced to testify against you. they may have witnessed the entire crime but because they are married to you they have no legal obligation to assist the government, and they dont even have to comment on the situation...so since i would own the video i would refuse to testify against myself.

So I guess you're against the police using a pedofile's kiddy-porn filled computer as evidence against him?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

so let me get this straight... they want to take private video without a warrant, but they also want to be able to knock out iphone camera capability when something is happening(or about to happen) they feel they dont want filmed so it cant be used against them.

http://news.msn.com/rumors/rumor-cops-can-block-iphone-camera-and-wi-fi

i feel the whole gopro being seized and video used against you should not be legal. same way that a spouse can not be forced to testify against you. they may have witnessed the entire crime but because they are married to you they have no legal obligation to assist the government, and they dont even have to comment on the situation...so since i would own the video i would refuse to testify against myself.

They may well have gotten a warrant. Typically, in the past, police could seize such evidence in order to preserve it, but couldn't actually view it without warrant. I haven't seen anything that contradicts that chain of events.

There has been, however, a precedent setting case recently that allows officers to view the contents of an unlocked cell phone. That thread is also in this forum.

 

[EaZ8]

So I guess you're against the police using a pedofile's kiddy-porn filled computer as evidence against him?

slight difference in being that possession of the kiddy porn is illegal so that would be what the crime is, where as being in possession of a motorcycle video is not illegal, the acts that took place in the video may very well be illegal but the video file is not.

They may well have gotten a warrant. Typically, in the past, police could seize such evidence in order to preserve it, but couldn't actually view it without warrant. I haven't seen anything that contradicts that chain of events.

There has been, however, a precedent setting case recently that allows officers to view the contents of an unlocked cell phone. That thread is also in this forum.

a court case or a incident? case law is one thing, a incident that took place is another.

i use to work for a major canadian company and it was there policy to not release private video on their CCTV to police without a internal assessment of the situation. 9/10 times we would supply them with the video because it was for incidents that happened on surrounding properties and didnt incriminate us anyway but it was all locked in secure rooms so the police had to ask for it nicely or obtain a warrant (which never happened anyway) a few times they were just told that we did not have coverage on that area even if we did, but that was up to the internal department to assess first.
basically what im getting at is you need a warrant to obtain video unless its willingly given up, especially by the accused.

now i dont generally go around breaking the law and taping it so im fine, but there is a point in which property ownership must come into play and being that it can not be unwillingly taken from you regardless of who is trying to take it (so long as the property that is attempting to be taken is not illegal eg kiddie porn or an tazer)

 

[Rob MacLennan]

a court case or a incident? case law is one thing, a incident that took place is another.

i use to work for a major canadian company and it was there policy to not release private video on their CCTV to police without a internal assessment of the situation. 9/10 times we would supply them with the video because it was for incidents that happened on surrounding properties and didnt incriminate us anyway but it was all locked in secure rooms so the police had to ask for it nicely or obtain a warrant (which never happened anyway) a few times they were just told that we did not have coverage on that area even if we did, but that was up to the internal department to assess first.
basically what im getting at is you need a warrant to obtain video unless its willingly given up, especially by the accused.

now i dont generally go around breaking the law and taping it so im fine, but there is a point in which property ownership must come into play and being that it can not be unwillingly taken from you regardless of who is trying to take it (so long as the property that is attempting to be taken is not illegal eg kiddie porn or an tazer)

Superior Court of Appeal case: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...cellphone-if-no-password-says-court-1.1310260

 

[EaZ8]

Superior Court of Appeal case: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...cellphone-if-no-password-says-court-1.1310260

ugh... thats depressing. i didnt read the whole thing but i got the just of it. so in theroy, if my memory card requires a password to view the files i would be fine because they cant seize it but they coulc plug it in and take a look.

aside from that, password added to my phone.....