Search results

And with this we have one of the reasons these "photo tag" threads are here.

Think "Dieppe" (significant considering what today is).

HAHA me thinks. That and Urban Tactical.

Anyone?

What now?

And once again, s.32(f) allows LE to disclose to LE.

You're a lot of fun at parties, aren't you?

You've got 20 seconds...

The dangerous is still criminal, but carries a max of 14 years whereas crim neg carries a max of life. Not having noticed the dangerous originally, I still stand with the appropriate charge being crim neg but the punishment is severe considering the intent, as stupid as she was.

I'd glanced at that and it would seem she wants to CHANGE the Act, not that there's a breach of it. Again, I feel the information is a benefit to responding police, as I think you do from a previous comment you made. The Commissioner's main problem, it seems, is the RCMP disclosing the...

Fair enough, I missed the dangerous as I read the story of events. I still see crim neg as the appropriate charge. I don't see how dangerous applies to a parked vehicle; the section specifically states that a person is operating a vehicle. Perhaps it's there to give her an avenue to plea down to?

43 has nothing to do with 42(1)(f), only 41(1)(b) and 42(1)(c). Again, the Acts allow for the collection and disclosure of information by and to LE agencies. Quickly looking at the documents filed by the watchdog in the Star report, it would seem that the TPS is ignoring her RECOMMENDATIONS...

Strangely, the wording for LE is almost identical in both documents, and both clearly allow for disclosure to other LE agencies (MFIPPA s.32(f), FIPPA s.42(1)(f)).

After a QUICK glance at the MFIPPA (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90m56_e.htm) and specifically at Part II, I'm not seeing the issue. It's collected for LE purposes and disclosed to CPIC for LE purposes, both conditions listed as acceptable. And then there's...

No, they want to try her for the appropriate charge. Dangerous doesn't apply as she wasn't operating the vehicle at the time. Had she stopped the vehicle to allow the ducks to pass then you could look at dangerous, but the vehicle is parked and unoccupied.

Because the person making the left is driving normally and makes a mistake, not to minimize the outcome but that is the situation. This case involves someone doing something plainly negligent and completely out of the norm; stopping in the fast lane of a busy highway, then getting out of the...

That was likely mine, although it was the other one without (what appears to be) as much adjustment at the front end (http://www.cerka.ca/comersus7f/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=45). I never truly trusted it and have since replaced it with a Baxley and there's no comparison; the Baxley...

Wow!

Maybe it's just how I'm looking at it but I think I see a bit of unworn area at the outter edge, so is the pad over hanging the rotor?

A law regarding a motorcycle going through a drive through on private property??? No. But as mentioned by others, many companies will have their own policies prohibiting it, for whatever reason they choose.