Failing to stop

[油井緋色]

Forum Sponsor

I've been followed by some dick heads who warned me, then proceeded to follow me some more until I turned into a parking lot (came into the parking lot with me too!) with a few firefighters (friends) and the cops kept staring me down (despite me giving them my ownership and insurance when they requested it).

After the recent murder of Clayton Rivert and a compound of horrible experiences with cops over the years...there is a serious amount of hatred brewing in me for these corrupt criminals patrolling the street.

Back on topic though: the current system is broken. Any ticket involves a hike in insurance premiums which results in 3 years of loss income. On top of that, the HTA172 can be applied for whatever reason (as many have said) and will always lead to the victim (whether prosecuted or not) losing at least $1,000 and change.

I've also had a cop tell me "I'm a danger to other drivers" because I was on my GSXR750. I wanted to say something but kept my mouth shut because it's the smart thing to do....

...seriously though, **** the police.

And btw, I have no tickets at all and I have been driving for 10 years and riding for 4. I just really ****ing hate cops.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I was going to post this on one of the other threads, but I thought it would be better if it had it's own.

From what I've seen, if a motorcyclist wants to run from the police, they will, and they will get away. They are faster than anything the police have, except for a radio, but we don't always have another car waiting ahead. If a rider is 100% committed to running, they are gone.

Last year I tried to stop a young man on an R6 who was cornered on a dead end road. We squared off and he rode right past me to get back to the highway, where he promptly took off at high speed. I didn't follow. Since I had some other investigative leads, I was able to show up at his house and the matter ended in criminal charges. One month later, he was followed by a police helicopter doing the same thing, and was arrested again, this time held for bail. He wasn't a bad kid but definitely made some bad choices. I would tend to think that most officers see someone that runs as someone who has a real reason to run, ie. stolen bike, wanted person, etc. The real danger that I'm seeing is that motorcyclists are running for much smaller reasons, and are either risking their own safety or other people's, in their escape.

Can we blame 172 for all of this? Would those that chose to run for a 172 charge run for a plate infraction? Would you run because your insurance slip was out of date? Where is the line in the sand that makes you decide not to stop for police?

HTA 172 is certainly one of the big issues here. The law is so broadly written and open to interpretation, that no one who has actually read it (and the supporting definitions) could ever think otherwise. Sections like the definition of "marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" are rather chilling in that you could be doing half the limit, but be judged to have exceeded the "lawful rate of speed." Repeatedly changing lanes isn't clearly undefined. Twice? Thrice? Fifty times?

Then we have the onerous penalties involved, that cannot be redressed in court. One member here was charged under HTA 172 for lane splitting, on a virtually stopped Gardiner Expressway, and the towing and storage fees resulted in him having to sell his bike to cover them. This, despite receiving a not guilty verdict. I can understand that, in some situations, an immediate action is required. For example you can't exactly put a person who is impaired by drugs or alcohol back behind the wheel, after a traffic stop. A speeder who has been stopped is no longer speeding. Someone who made a left turn before oncoming traffic could move, at a signal light, is no longer performing such an action. There is NO, absolutely NO immediate need for remedy. Despite findings on appeal this law is in breach of our basic rights as citizens.

Couple this with the sort of abuse that was predicted by the likes of BrianP, ddusseld, and myself, and has apparently come to pass, though none of us can seem to find out what has happened with this case. The charges levied against Dennis Mahoney-Bruer and the complete (perhaps perceived) lack of transparency in that issue gives all officers a black eye. It brings the administration of justice into disrepute. This law creates a situation in which two basic tenets of legal philosophy are violated; "Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done" (R v Sussex) and "Better that ten guilty men escape than that one innocent suffer" (Justice Sir William Blackstone).

But even with all of that said, I don't know if more people are running today than were prior to HTA 172. Back when I first started riding, in the 1980s, it seemed that perhaps a third of riders I met had some story about running. It does certainly make people think about whether or not they would run, in a given situation, and many people I know who would never have run previous to this law coming into pass now say that they would consider doing so. Would I ever run? No. Have I ever run? No. But a friend recently reminded me of a quote by another friend, made years back; "Is it running if you just don't slow down?"

 

[Emefef]

I agree with all of Rob's excellent points. The earlier posts that identified actual parts of the law that could be interpreted differently than Bike Cop anticipated demonstrated a couple of points. First, he probably has a much more rational approach and reasonable interpretation of what was intended. Second, there is room for interpretation, which can lead to inconsistent, and inappropriate application of the law. Combine that with an immediate and expensive pre-trial punishment, and you have a lot of incentive to not hang around. I can't imagine doing it myself, but I can really understand the mentality now of those that do.
. As Rob pointed out, "this law creates a situation in which two basic tenets of legal philosophy are violated...". We had existing restrictions and provisions in the HTA for all of these infractions, and could rely on the presumption of innocence to protect us from "punishment" before a trial (or guilty plea). Now the cost resulting from an unproven charge, at the sole discretion of a single officer, is greater than a proven charge, a conviction of one of the previous offences.

 

[uncleduck]

I'm a bit of an expert on the topic, I've seen almost every episode of COPS. When asked why they ran, the usual answer is "I was scared".

..

 

[hedo2002]

I've been followed by some dick heads who warned me, then proceeded to follow me some more until I turned into a parking lot (came into the parking lot with me too!) with a few firefighters (friends) and the cops kept staring me down (despite me giving them my ownership and insurance when they requested it).

After the recent murder of Clayton Rivert and a compound of horrible experiences with cops over the years...there is a serious amount of hatred brewing in me for these corrupt criminals patrolling the street.

Back on topic though: the current system is broken. Any ticket involves a hike in insurance premiums which results in 3 years of loss income. On top of that, the HTA172 can be applied for whatever reason (as many have said) and will always lead to the victim (whether prosecuted or not) losing at least $1,000 and change.

I've also had a cop tell me "I'm a danger to other drivers" because I was on my GSXR750. I wanted to say something but kept my mouth shut because it's the smart thing to do....

...seriously though, **** the police.

And btw, I have no tickets at all and I have been driving for 10 years and riding for 4. I just really ****ing hate cops.

Can you please provide context?? Perhaps the video after all you HAD to have been there. You have NO clue as to what happened. As was pointed out by Roomie YOU want the presumption of innocence and DEMAND it. Yet your unwilling to have it go the other way.. THAT my friend is the definition of HYPOCRITICAL. Lets NOT have an investigation, (yeah I am sure you will say it will be biased). AGAIN not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the professionals of the SIU, (NOT cops).

So don't come here crying when you don't get the benefit of the doubt that your unwilling to give ANYONE else.

BTW if the officer involved isn't charged with murder you just opened yourself for him and the police union to sue you for slander... Might wish to reconsider your wording. Although I doubt your worth the time and effort. With your attitude is it any wonder there is an us and them mentality between riders and police. Bike cop asked a legit question and you end your rant with F*** the cops but I doubt your man enough to say to the face of an officer, when stopped.... good luck.

Good for Raginduck for relating his interactions and for even admitting he was sure the one officer crashed his cruiser rather than "take him out" He has since altered his riding style. Good for you brother. (actual praise not sarcasm).

 

[inreb]

Is it abused? Certainly but it is being abused by a select few not the majority of officers.

It would be helpful if the "select" few had a big upside down 7 on the forehead to aid the split decision making process. But, alas, they do not. Gambling with justice.

 

[inreb]

Actually the ONLY one that a conviction was registered for was for speeding, that one was reduced to 10 over but I still would have argued it in court, as that is my right and your right, I do have "legal savvy" but not "shucking responsibility" at all just exercising my legal rights, (to contest the ticket). I have posted about one of them on the forum, (seatbelt), when in fact I was wearing the seatbelt.

What are you arguing in court? Either you're guilty of the charge or you're not. Lying isn't arguing. I don't care about your rights in this context. Again, good on you for "using" the system but understand that it severely degrades your credibility.

 

[油井緋色]

Can you please provide context?? Perhaps the video after all you HAD to have been there. You have NO clue as to what happened. As was pointed out by Roomie YOU want the presumption of innocence and DEMAND it. Yet your unwilling to have it go the other way.. THAT my friend is the definition of HYPOCRITICAL. Lets NOT have an investigation, (yeah I am sure you will say it will be biased). AGAIN not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the professionals of the SIU, (NOT cops).

So don't come here crying when you don't get the benefit of the doubt that your unwilling to give ANYONE else.

BTW if the officer involved isn't charged with murder you just opened yourself for him and the police union to sue you for slander... Might wish to reconsider your wording. Although I doubt your worth the time and effort. With your attitude is it any wonder there is an us and them mentality between riders and police. Bike cop asked a legit question and you end your rant with F*** the cops but I doubt your man enough to say to the face of an officer, when stopped.... good luck.

Good for Raginduck for relating his interactions and for even admitting he was sure the one officer crashed his cruiser rather than "take him out" He has since altered his riding style. Good for you brother. (actual praise not sarcasm).

The last time I did, the cop tried to scare me by searching me. This is after being harassed that I was "drunk driving" because I stumbled out of the car into the beer store to buy some; I had done legs the morning of and my right leg failed on a squat, leading to some knee problems.

We all know the SIU will take their sweet *** time then deem the cop innocent a month or two after the incident when the heat has died down. Politics have always played this way, to something as major as Edward Snowden to something as "minor" as Clayton. I'd love to tell every cop to go **** themselves but they have the power and will find something to charge you with. Even if it doesn't stick, I'd have to waste my time to go to court for it to fall off.

Maybe you were once a good cop, or BikeCop is, but I was there when the cop at KC said he'd "run a rider into a wall if they try to run"...and there seems to be a lot more cops with that mentality than pleasant ones.

 

[hedo2002]

Why would you default to the position I was lying or that my credibility is degraded? Perhaps it is because I was PREPARED. Now certainly my police experience taught me many things, a couple of which is be VERY prepared when you go to court and only make reasoned sound arguments.

As an example of the seatbelt infraction I was wearing the belt. The vehicle had been modified by a previous owner. This made it impossible for the officer to see the belt across my shoulder. Now at the time I was stopped I said nothing about the modifications. I knew if I did the officer could have laid a charge of "improper equipment". So I said nothing. The officer asked if the seatbelt was functioning and operational. I said it was. This was all true.

Before attending court. I went to first appearance the crown and I discussed it I said I was wearing the belt. Trial date was set.

On the morning of the trila I attended with photos showing the modification, (the mount for the belt had been lowered approx 3"). I had photos showing it in that state. I also had a notarized statement from the previous owner stating he had had this modification done due to medical issues. I then also had photos and a receipt, (from my mechanic), showing the modification had been reversed and that the mount was now in the OEM location.

The crown looked at the photos and then had a pow wow with the officer. the officer called me outside into the hallway. He asked why I didn't just tell him about the modification when he stopped me. I replied you would have tagged me for improper equipment. He smiled asked how I knew that. I said I was a copper and that was what I would have done. He said ok. I honestly now have a doubt as to weather you wearing indeed wearing the belt at the time I stopped you. I will ask the crown to withdraw the charge, you can leave. I said thanks But I will sick around until it is withdrawn. ABout 5 minutes later I was called to the bench the Court reported read the information the crown said your honor we would like to dismiss the charge. the JP said ok and said sir your charge is withdrawn you may leave. i thanked the court and left.

There was no need to not tell the truth, as the officer was incorrect in his observation, and I was prepared to prove it. The officer and crown seeing my preparation, knew it was likely I would get a verdict of not guilty and withdrew the charge. So how does that degrade my credibility? I merely was prepared to prove my case, based on the facts. i wasn't subverting the system.

That is why when people ask about tickets I advise them to read about the offence they were charged with and see if the facts support the charge. if not then it is in your best interest to prepare, when you think your prepare, then prepare, and then prepare more. More often then not the crown wants to deal with the "low hanging fruit" if someone is very prepared they would rather withdraw, then have to prepare themselves. Thankfully under our system the crown is obligated to disclose their evidence to us we are not so obligated to the crown....lol

What are you arguing in court? Either you're guilty of the charge or you're not. Lying isn't arguing. I don't care about your rights in this context. Again, good on you for "using" the system but understand that it severely degrades your credibility.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

hedo2002: Some people seem to believe that making use of your right to due process, when nominally guilty of a charge, is somehow an abuse of that system. They don't understand that it's a matter of presumption of innocence and that The State must prove guilt. Such trials also help to improve the system by pointing out its weaknesses. If the system is not tested, then it will fail when stressed. If the system is not tested, then it can be allowed to become corrupted.

 

[hedo2002]

I agree there are cops who are bad or have power trips.just as there are those types in other professions. But your blanket statement that all cops are bad is no more fair then for cops to say all riders are bad. I doubt you would want them to think like that. They are human and just like everyone else they have their prejudices.

In the paragraph below you said you were "harrassed" that you were drunk driving merely because you "stumbled out of the car and into the beer store". So please enlighten us should have the officer merely drove past and ignored what he saw. I think "miost" would agree that based upon his observations, it was a reasonable conclusion that you may have been drinking. How was the officer to know you had an injury? I have stopped people stumbling after they were gotten out of the car, only to discover they were diabetic and have a reaction. (Diabetics will under certain conditions appear intoxicated, and their breath will even have a "sweet" smell similar to alcohol). Once discovered it was indeed a medical issue, medical attention was sought. Now if that is "harassment" then you and I have a very different view of harassment.

I guess my point is if you go into EVERY interaction believing they are going to screw you over then, often that is what will happen. Each action has an equally bad reaction..lol

The last time I did, the cop tried to scare me by searching me. This is after being harassed that I was "drunk driving" because I stumbled out of the car into the beer store to buy some; I had done legs the morning of and my right leg failed on a squat, leading to some knee problems.

We all know the SIU will take their sweet *** time then deem the cop innocent a month or two after the incident when the heat has died down. Politics have always played this way, to something as major as Edward Snowden to something as "minor" as Clayton. I'd love to tell every cop to go **** themselves but they have the power and will find something to charge you with. Even if it doesn't stick, I'd have to waste my time to go to court for it to fall off.

Maybe you were once a good cop, or BikeCop is, but I was there when the cop at KC said he'd "run a rider into a wall if they try to run"...and there seems to be a lot more cops with that mentality than pleasant ones.

 

[uncleduck]

Very interesting thread....continue

 

[hedo2002]

hedo2002: Some people seem to believe that making use of your right to due process, when nominally guilty of a charge, is somehow an abuse of that system. They don't understand that it's a matter of presumption of innocence and that The State must prove guilt. Such trials also help to improve the system by pointing out its weaknesses. If the system is not tested, then it will fail when stressed. If the system is not tested, then it can be allowed to become corrupted.

+1. This is why we now have a charter of rights and freedoms, (which was NOT in effect when I started my policing career. Your absolutely correct as a result of these "tests" of the system we now have VERY specific steps which must be observed when doing radar or when stopping someone for impaired etc.

WAY back we just pulled out the radar gun and "assumed" it was accurate, (some officer actually used the tuning fork to test it). We used to just pull the drunk out of the car and drag their sorry butt to the breathalyzer and there was no calling a lawyer or refusing...lol But some will never understand as you said things improve when tested..lol

 

[油井緋色]

I agree there are cops who are bad or have power trips.just as there are those types in other professions. But your blanket statement that all cops are bad is no more fair then for cops to say all riders are bad. I doubt you would want them to think like that. They are human and just like everyone else they have their prejudices.

In the paragraph below you said you were "harrassed" that you were drunk driving merely because you "stumbled out of the car and into the beer store". So please enlighten us should have the officer merely drove past and ignored what he saw. I think "miost" would agree that based upon his observations, it was a reasonable conclusion that you may have been drinking. How was the officer to know you had an injury? I have stopped people stumbling after they were gotten out of the car, only to discover they were diabetic and have a reaction. (Diabetics will under certain conditions appear intoxicated, and their breath will even have a "sweet" smell similar to alcohol). Once discovered it was indeed a medical issue, medical attention was sought. Now if that is "harassment" then you and I have a very different view of harassment.

I guess my point is if you go into EVERY interaction believing they are going to screw you over then, often that is what will happen. Each action has an equally bad reaction..lol

He could have just asked me while I was grabbing beer and walking to my car. But nope, he followed me for 5 minutes and pulled me over in the middle of the road. I suppose it's because if he wanted to charge me something he has to do it outside of private property?

I apologize for my post earlier; I am just raging. The issue with cops is the same as my issue with internet privacy laws, if the hammer is going to come down, there is very little anyone can do about it unless you rally thousands of people together (PROTECT IP and SOPA as examples).

 

[inreb]

Why would you default to the position I was lying or that my credibility is degraded? Perhaps it is because I was PREPARED. Now certainly my police experience taught me many things, a couple of which is be VERY prepared when you go to court and only make reasoned sound arguments.

As an example of the seatbelt infraction I was wearing the belt. The vehicle had been modified by a previous owner. This made it impossible for the officer to see the belt across my shoulder. Now at the time I was stopped I said nothing about the modifications. I knew if I did the officer could have laid a charge of "improper equipment". So I said nothing. The officer asked if the seatbelt was functioning and operational. I said it was. This was all true.

Before attending court. I went to first appearance the crown and I discussed it I said I was wearing the belt. Trial date was set.

On the morning of the trila I attended with photos showing the modification, (the mount for the belt had been lowered approx 3"). I had photos showing it in that state. I also had a notarized statement from the previous owner stating he had had this modification done due to medical issues. I then also had photos and a receipt, (from my mechanic), showing the modification had been reversed and that the mount was now in the OEM location.

The crown looked at the photos and then had a pow wow with the officer. the officer called me outside into the hallway. He asked why I didn't just tell him about the modification when he stopped me. I replied you would have tagged me for improper equipment. He smiled asked how I knew that. I said I was a copper and that was what I would have done. He said ok. I honestly now have a doubt as to weather you wearing indeed wearing the belt at the time I stopped you. I will ask the crown to withdraw the charge, you can leave. I said thanks But I will sick around until it is withdrawn. ABout 5 minutes later I was called to the bench the Court reported read the information the crown said your honor we would like to dismiss the charge. the JP said ok and said sir your charge is withdrawn you may leave. i thanked the court and left.

There was no need to not tell the truth, as the officer was incorrect in his observation, and I was prepared to prove it. The officer and crown seeing my preparation, knew it was likely I would get a verdict of not guilty and withdrew the charge. So how does that degrade my credibility? I merely was prepared to prove my case, based on the facts. i wasn't subverting the system.

That is why when people ask about tickets I advise them to read about the offence they were charged with and see if the facts support the charge. if not then it is in your best interest to prepare, when you think your prepare, then prepare, and then prepare more. More often then not the crown wants to deal with the "low hanging fruit" if someone is very prepared they would rather withdraw, then have to prepare themselves. Thankfully under our system the crown is obligated to disclose their evidence to us we are not so obligated to the crown....lol

Why are you using this example? Clearly you were not guilty. Looks like "some" people can't understand what's being discussed.

 

[gixxer_flexx]

Hypothetical Scenario for OP:

you see a bike speeding, in violation of some aspect of 172, you get his plates but after you throw on the cherries he takes off and you dont chase/cant catch him.

With his plate you proceed to the house, knock on the door, someone opens the door. Then what?

Can you open the garage and inspect the bike for clues that it was recently ridden and matches the same plate number, with or without a warrant? If you can, how do you prove who exactly was riding? maybe a brother, a friend? a parent? a theif? What if you dont find the exact jacket/helmet? what if you do? How can you prove in a court of law who was riding it? Cant he say it was stolen, accidentally left garage open, was taking a shower so he didnt know to report it stolen, and the thief returned it back as to not bring heat on themselves and instead bring the heat to the owner of the vehicle?

I am really curious what a cops answer to this is. I feel this is similar to a red light camera situation, but i will await some hopefully intellectual responses.

 

[Bike Cop]

Gixxer_flexx, every time someone runs, it's a new investigation. They are never identical, and each case has intricacies that set it apart from the one before it. I've had riders that are identifiable by their facial features, even with a full-face helmet. I've had riders that because of their stature make them unique or easier to identify. How about the one that crashes the bike and abandons it, only to be found with injuries that are consistent with a bike crash, or DNA left at the scene? The list is almost endless, and it would be hard to describe every possible minutia.

There are a lot of variables in your scenario, and a lot of possible outcomes. Based on what you've told me there's not a lot to go on. I'll play along, and answer what I can.

When I get to the house, I ask to speak with the registered owner of the vehicle. I would have some questions about the use of the motorcycle, who has access to it, when they might have used it, who has keys to it, when was it used last, where is it now, etc. I would need some answers to those questions to move forward in this scenario.

Assuming it's a private garage, and not a shared space/parking garage, I'm not going in there. I will need a warrant. For a search warrant under the Criminal Code (s. 487) I need to prove that there is a criminal offence, that there is evidence of the offence in the garage, and that the evidence in the garage will support the charge. I'm not going to be able to do that without some background legwork. I haven't looked at HTA warrants before... but it's an interesting idea that might be employed one day.

As for the thief that steals the bike, joyride with it, only to return it later... I would be skeptical of that tale... doesn't sound entirely plausible to me. And, if it is reported stolen, and later the theft is found to be falsely reported, the complainant runs the risk of a criminal charge for public mischief.

Red light cameras are an interesting one because they can fall under s. 207 HTA allowing the owner to be charged. There are quite a few sections that apply in the same manner, it's worth a read. Currently, 172 charges are not owner-liable offences. I would not be surprised if some day in the future, this changed. That might cause this forum to explode.

 

[PLau]

Gixxer_flexx, every time someone runs, it's a new investigation. They are never identical, and each case has intricacies that set it apart from the one before it. I've had riders that are identifiable by their facial features, even with a full-face helmet. I've had riders that because of their stature make them unique or easier to identify. How about the one that crashes the bike and abandons it, only to be found with injuries that are consistent with a bike crash, or DNA left at the scene? The list is almost endless, and it would be hard to describe every possible minutia.

There are a lot of variables in your scenario, and a lot of possible outcomes. Based on what you've told me there's not a lot to go on. I'll play along, and answer what I can.

When I get to the house, I ask to speak with the registered owner of the vehicle. I would have some questions about the use of the motorcycle, who has access to it, when they might have used it, who has keys to it, when was it used last, where is it now, etc. I would need some answers to those questions to move forward in this scenario.

Assuming it's a private garage, and not a shared space/parking garage, I'm not going in there. I will need a warrant. For a search warrant under the Criminal Code (s. 487) I need to prove that there is a criminal offence, that there is evidence of the offence in the garage, and that the evidence in the garage will support the charge. I'm not going to be able to do that without some background legwork. I haven't looked at HTA warrants before... but it's an interesting idea that might be employed one day.

As for the thief that steals the bike, joyride with it, only to return it later... I would be skeptical of that tale... doesn't sound entirely plausible to me. And, if it is reported stolen, and later the theft is found to be falsely reported, the complainant runs the risk of a criminal charge for public mischief.

Red light cameras are an interesting one because they can fall under s. 207 HTA allowing the owner to be charged. There are quite a few sections that apply in the same manner, it's worth a read. Currently, 172 charges are not owner-liable offences. I would not be surprised if some day in the future, this changed. That might cause this forum to explode.

In that case, don't we have the right to remain silent and not answer your questions thus not giving you any way to pin the charge or get a warrant?

 

[Bike Cop]

In that case, don't we have the right to remain silent and not answer your questions thus not giving you any way to pin the charge or get a warrant?

The right to remain silent is a phrase that comes from U.S. television. Here, you should be aware of the possible consequences of giving a statement. You can ask the officer about the purpose for the statement, and whether or not you are compelled to give one at the time. For me, if I'm at the doorstep asking questions, I'm more interested in cautioning the owner against either driving like a hooligan, or allowing someone else to use the motorcycle to drive like one.

 

[gixxer_flexx]

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate you answering. I was just curious and i understand the variables could really affect the outcome but this has been something i was wondering for a while.

From what i gathered from your reply and my own understanding, unless there was some concrete evidence, this tactic could work and there is not much a cop could do about it. Even though you would have skepticism about the story, it isnt enough to go on as i understand it so i guess its good enough.

interesting.

Forum Sponsor