Double standard BS

[VTEC_Inside]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/21/ot-harding-080221.html

[Cookie Monster]

WTF

[dazzleman]

That's not right.  The law ought to applied consistently, without age being a factor.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Fucking old people with their stupid being old and shit.

130 km/h or more are considered stunt driving


That is the stupidest shit I have ever heard of. I have a better idea, how about we just nuke Canada before that shit spreads to the south? Oh, and get Virginia out of the way while we're at it.

[dazzleman]

Fucking old people with their stupid being old and shit.

130 km/h or more are considered stunt driving


That is the stupidest shit I have ever heard of. I have a better idea, how about we just nuke Canada before that shit spreads to the south? Oh, and get Virginia out of the way while we're at it.

You're a little radical, dude.

[Soup DeVille]

Sounds like normal plea bargaining to me.

[dazzleman]

Sounds like normal plea bargaining to me.

It probably is.  That's why these laws never really work.  Those who know how to game the system always come out better than those who don't.  It took me a few tickets to figure that out.

[Lazerous]

That's not right.  The law ought to applied consistently, without age being a factor.

Am I the only one not bothered by this?

I disagree with the notion that the law ought to be applied consistently as that simply implies one should read out of the text book and follow exactly what it says. In my opinion, that would make it no different than having robots in the courtrooms enforcing these laws. The truth of the matter is that there are other conditions that come into play and should be taken into consideration.

Let me make one thing clear, I completely agree and support the fact that the cop stopped him and issued him a citation relevant to the rule(s) this guy had broken. I'm glad the cop made an example out of him and did not simply let the guy off because of his age.

However, I am not completely against the fact nor does it bother me at all that his fine got reduced in court. Unless he was driving a sports car like a Corvette then I see no reason why he should be penalized as do street racers with their modified cars. I would say it was fairly obvious that it was not his intent to go into the "stunt driving" zone and I am actually glad his fine got reduced but not completely thrown away.

[Cookie Monster]

Am I the only one not bothered by this?

I disagree with the notion that the law ought to be applied consistently as that simply implies one should read out of the text book and follow exactly what it says. In my opinion, that would make it no different than having robots in the courtrooms enforcing these laws. The truth of the matter is that there are other conditions that come into play and should be taken into consideration.

Let me make one thing clear, I completely agree and support the fact that the cop stopped him and issued him a citation relevant to the rule(s) this guy had broken. I'm glad the cop made an example out of him and did not simply let the guy off because of his age.

However, I am not completely against the fact nor does it bother me at all that his fine got reduced in court. Unless he was driving a sports car like a Corvette then I see no reason why he should be penalized as do street racers with their modified cars. I would say it was fairly obvious that it was not his intent to go into the "stunt driving" zone and I am actually glad his fine got reduced but not completely thrown away.

If that cop pulled you over, you'd have your car confiscated immediately, whether you were intentionally racing or not.

[Lazerous]

If that cop pulled you over, you'd have your car confiscated immediately, whether you were intentionally racing or not.

Doesn't that law imply it is being issued to decrease the number of street racers?

[Cookie Monster]

Doesn't that law imply it is being issued to decrease the number of street racers?

I'm saying that even if you weren't street racing, in a stock car, and you were going that fast, you'd get your car confiscated because you're young.
That guy got off because he's old. That's not fair.

[Lazerous]

Regardless, my previous post stands whether or not it was a racing infraction. I still agree and support what the cop did and am not bothered that his fine got reduced. I just imagine my father being in this position. I would never tag him as a "stunt driver" at his age and thus would not agree that this law be applied to him. As cynical and cold-hearted as it may sound, I agree the cop would have done right in pulling him over because excessive speeds like that are dangerous to himself and those around him. Yet I would like to see his fine reduced in court.

I'm saying that even if you weren't street racing, in a stock car, and you were going that fast, you'd get your car confiscated because you're young.
That guy got off because he's old. That's not fair.

It would be rightfully done. That is the law. Once again, the judges and prosecutors in court are not robots, for the most part. If you had a relatively clean record then they will give you the benefit of the doubt and let you off easy. Which is exactly what happened with me when I got nailed. Plus, it is safe to assume that if a young person was speeding like that then he is a regular speeder. That's the simple, unfiltered truth.

Why do people insist on sugar coating things and living in this idealist world which only exists in their minds?

[Cookie Monster]

Regardless, my previous post stands whether or not it was a racing infraction. I still agree and support what the cop did and am not bothered that his fine got reduced. I just imagine my father being in this position. I would never tag him as a "stunt driver" at his age and thus would not agree that this law be applied to him. As cynical and cold-hearted as it may sound, I agree the cop would have done right in pulling him over because excessive speeds like that are dangerous to himself and those around him. Yet I would like to see his fine reduced in court.

It would be rightfully done. That is the law. Once again, the judges and prosecutors in court are not robots, for the most part. If you had a relatively clean record then they will give you the benefit of the doubt and let you off easy. Which is exactly what happened with me when I got nailed. Plus, it is safe to assume that if a young person was speeding like that then he is a regular speeder. that's the simple truth.

Why do people insist on sugar coating things and living in this idealist world which only exists in their minds?

I am not a "stunt driver" and rarely speed, and for some reason if I were caught at that speed, the judge and/or cop would not lower the fine for me, because of my age.
Why does that guy get off just because at his age, he is less likely to be racing?

[Lazerous]

I am not a "stunt driver" and rarely speed, and for some reason if I were caught at that speed, the judge and/or cop would not lower the fine for me, because of my age.
Why does that guy get off just because at his age, he is less likely to be racing?

Listen, you are speaking out of your ass at this point. If you rarely speed then reaching 130km/h should be somewhat out of the question for you.
This old man had an appointment with his doctor and if he could prove that to the court then that is even more of a reason why he should get his fine reduced. Doctor appointments at that age are more of a necessity than our doctor appointment so it was probably crucial that me make it to his doc on time.

Have you seen old people drive? They are a lot less likely to speed than 90% of the teenagers out there. That is fact.

If you are not a stunt driver then this one simple infraction should not hurt you because of your otherwise clean record. Listen man, I was 16 when I got nailed. You don't get much younger than that. Yet, did I suffer sever consequences? No, because, once again, people in the court room usually don't have their face shoved in a text book simply applying what they read. They take outside factors into consideration and apply them accordingly.

[Cookie Monster]

Listen, you are speaking out of your ass at this point. If you rarely speed then reaching 130km/h should be somewhat out of the question for you.
This old man had an appointment with his doctor and if he could prove that to the court then that is even more of a reason why he should get his fine reduced. Doctor appointments at that age are more of a necessity than our doctor appointment so it was probably crucial that me make it to his doc on time.

Have you seen old people drive? They are a lot less likely to speed than 90% of the teenagers out there. That is fact.

If you are not a stunt driver then this one simple infraction should not hurt you because of your otherwise clean record. Listen man, I was 16 when I got nailed. You don't get much younger than that. Yet, did I suffer sever consequences? No, because, once again, people in the court room usually don't have their face shoved in a text book simply applying what they read. They take outside factors into consideration and apply them accordingly.

If you read the article then you'd know in Canadia that "stunt driving" means that you lose your car. The first time.
And how am I talking out of my ass? Why is it fair to "discriminate" based on age?
I don't care if they're a lot less likely to speed than teenagers, that guy was still speeding very fast and therefore should get the consequences.
And if he was able to drive that fast I'm sure the doctor's appointment wasn't an emergency either. If it was, he'd be in the car while someone else drives him. So that's not a valid point.

[Lazerous]

If you read the article then you'd know in Canadia that "stunt driving" means that you lose your car. The first time.
And how am I talking out of my ass? Why is it fair to "discriminate" based on age?
I don't care if they're a lot less likely to speed than teenagers, that guy was still speeding very fast and therefore should get the consequences.
And if he was able to drive that fast I'm sure the doctor's appointment wasn't an emergency either. If it was, he'd be in the car while someone else drives him. So that's not a valid point.

Dear god help me.
I read the article. I understand what stunt driving is. In my opinion, the whole law is bullshit to punish someone that severely, but we are not arguing that now. Whatever law they have set up then that is the law.

So the guy got his car confiscated for a week just like the law said, right? If you read what I said before then I made it clear that I wholeheartedly agree with the decisive actions the cop took.

What do you mean you don't care if they are a lot less likely to speed than teens? That could only mean they should get a slap on the wrist instead of the full blown pole up their ass. If you are a repeat offender or likely to be a candidate for a repeat offense then you deserve the full punishment.

No you fool. Just because the guy isn't suffering from from a stroke or heart attack does not mean it is vital that he see his doctor on appointment day. How ignorant do you have to be to not get this point?

[Cookie Monster]

Dear god help me.
I read the article. I understand what stunt driving is. In my opinion, the whole law is bullshit to punish someone that severely, but we are not arguing that now. Whatever law they have set up then that is the law.

So the guy got his car confiscated for a week just like the law said, right? If you read what I said before then I made it clear that I wholeheartedly agree with the decisive actions the cop took.

What do you mean you don't care if they are a lot less likely to speed than teens? That could only mean they should get a slap on the wrist instead of the full blown pole up their ass. If you are a repeat offender or likely to be a candidate for a repeat offense then you deserve the full punishment.

No you fool. Just because the guy isn't suffering from from a stroke or heart attack does not mean it is vital that he see his doctor on appointment day. How ignorant do you have to be to not get this point?

I like how you start resorting to insulting me to try to get your point across.

First of all, I never said that he should visit his doctor. You should check up on your reading. He shouldn't have to be going 50 km/h over  the limit to get to the doctor in the first place! That's more dangerous because it puts other people at risk. I wouldn't want an old man going that fast around me because even though speeding doesn't kill, people who can't control their cars do, and I've heard just as many stories of old people killing others because they can't control their car as much as young people doing the same. Yet this guy gets away with a slap on the wrist because of his age, and that's not fair. I bet you a person in his 20's with a clean record will still get the full shaft instead of a slap on the wrist that the old man got, even if the young guy was not street racing.

He got off with a lot less than what someone else would've gotten just because of his age, and that's not a fair thing to do.

[Lazerous]

I like how you start resorting to insulting me to try to get your point across.

First of all, I never said that he should visit his doctor. You should check up on your reading. He shouldn't have to be going 50 km/h over  the limit to get to the doctor in the first place! That's more dangerous because it puts other people at risk. I wouldn't want an old man going that fast around me because even though speeding doesn't kill, people who can't control their cars do, and I've heard just as many stories of old people killing others because they can't control their car as much as young people doing the same. Yet this guy gets away with a slap on the wrist because of his age, and that's not fair. I bet you a person in his 20's with a clean record will still get the full shaft instead of a slap on the wrist that the old man got, even if the young guy was not street racing.

He got off with a lot less than what someone else would've gotten just because of his age, and that's not a fair thing to do.

Where did I insult you? I called you a fool and rightfully so because you blindly implied that for someone to have an 'important' doctors appointment would mean he would have to be suffering from something that would impair his driving ability. If that really did offend you then grow a pair, the real world isn't going to be much easier on you.

Of course you never said he should visit his doctor, neither did I. I honestly am not understanding that part of your post. He made the decision to go see his doctor, I don't even see why we have to discuss that. Care to elaborate?

Would you look at that! I agree with and have been doing so ever since my first post in this thread. So I am going to repeat it for the last time. I agree that he should not have been excessively speeding like that and am glad the officer pulled his ass over and nailed him with the law.

No you haven't heard more stories of old folks killing people than young reckless teens. For god's sake I live in Florida and know how old people drive! I also happen to know how reckless teens drive due to the excessive street racing this state sees on its roads. Then add to that the fact that I have experienced and undergone such trial and tribulation and you will see how you're speaking out of your ass without experience.

I'm glad he got away with this in court  because he is a lot less likely to be a repeat offender than a teenager or someone in their 20's. That is the simple fact of life. Once again, why do you insist on portraying the world in this idealist way? Sure you have your good teens who made an "honest" mistake of going 30mph over the speed limit but the fact of the matter is that they are too far and few and tend to not to go 30mph over the limit. Maybe 15-20 but not 30.

Seriously, what your are saying is that no other factor whatsoever should be taken into account, I'll use my example once again, just like robots. So then, why not the state save some money and simply type up the guys name on a sheet of paper along with the law he broke bubbled in on a scan-tron sheet and run it through a scan-tron machine and all is well. Because that is what all your posts have been implying thus far.

[CALL_911]

Where did I insult you? I called you a fool and rightfully so because you blindly implied that for someone to have an 'important' doctors appointment would mean he would have to be suffering from something that would impair his driving ability. If that really did offend you then grow a pair, the real world isn't going to be much easier on you.

Of course you never said he should visit his doctor, neither did I. I honestly am not understanding that part of your post. He made the decision to go see his doctor, I don't even see why we have to discuss that. Care to elaborate?

Would you look at that! I agree with and have been doing so ever since my first post in this thread. So I am going to repeat it for the last time. I agree that he should not have been excessively speeding like that and am glad the officer pulled his ass over and nailed him with the law.

No you haven't heard more stories of old folks killing people than young reckless teens. For god's sake I live in Florida and know how old people drive! I also happen to know how reckless teens drive due to the excessive street racing this state sees on its roads. Then add to that the fact that I have experienced and undergone such trial and tribulation and you will see how you're speaking out of your ass without experience.

I'm glad he got away with this in court  because he is a lot less likely to be a repeat offender than a teenager or someone in their 20's. That is the simple fact of life. Once again, why do you insist on portraying the world in this idealist way? Sure you have your good teens who made an "honest" mistake of going 30mph over the speed limit but the fact of the matter is that they are too far and few and tend to not to go 30mph over the limit. Maybe 15-20 but not 30.

Seriously, what your are saying is that no other factor whatsoever should be taken into account, I'll use my example once again, just like robots. So then, why not the state save some money and simply type up the guys name on a sheet of paper along with the law he broke bubbled in on a scan-tron sheet and run it through a scan-tron machine and all is well. Because that is what all your posts have been implying thus far.

Holy shit man, how long did that take you?

[Cookie Monster]

Holy shit man, how long did that take you?

I dunno and I'm not going to bother responding to that because then it'll take me too long.

Let's just agree to disagree and I still think you're wrong.

[Lazerous]

Holy shit man, how long did that take you?

Not long at all, why do you ask? All of that was just flowing from my mind to my finger tips to the keyboard. I honestly am not seeing how he is trying to argue this with his logic and lack of experience in any of the fields. I am not trying to call him out like trep does, but honestly, he doesn't even have a car thus he has not logged in many hours of driving.

Regardless, his antics and posts are detracting me from my studies and this damn three hour lecture I have to watch. So please Rag, realize you are wrong, you don't have to openly admit it. Just let me get back to my studying, because continuously proving you wrong is a lot more fun than watching stats lectures.

[Cookie Monster]

Not long at all, why do you ask? All of that was just flowing from my mind to my finger tips to the keyboard. I honestly am not seeing how he is trying to argue this with his logic and lack of experience in any of the fields. I am not trying to call him out like trep does, but honestly, he doesn't even have a car thus he has not logged in many hours of driving.

Regardless, his antics and posts are detracting me from my studies and this damn three hour lecture I have to watch. So please Rag, realize you are wrong, you don't have to openly admit it. Just let me get back to my studying, because continuously proving you wrong is a lot more fun than watching stats lectures.

Considering that no one is agreeing with you (yet), that would make you wrong, not me.

And please don't go about pulling the same shit that trep does, with the whole "you don't have a car you don't know anything" shit because I do drive a lot, not as much as you guys but it's not like I never touch the car. And you haven't been driving that long either in the grand scheme of things. It wasn't even that long ago that you were complaining about your racing incident and that was when you were 16.

[Lazerous]

I dunno and I'm not going to bother responding to that because then it'll take me too long.

Wow, what a great excuse man. I applaud you.

Let's just agree to disagree and I still think you're wrong.

Type as long and elaborate of a post as you want. I have 2.5 more hours till this lecture is done, that should be more than enough time to completely explain your stance. It seems you don't have much to do today either way since you've been on the 'spin for a while now.

Please, go right ahead. I'll be expecting something after I'm done learning about probabilities and other random sampling shit.

[Raza]

That's not right.  The law ought to applied consistently, without age being a factor.

See why people have problems with speed law enforcement? 

It's ageism.  Had that been a 20 year old on the way to a doctor's appointment, they would have said that he should have been more responsible and left earlier. 

[Lazerous]

Considering that no one is agreeing with you (yet), that would make you wrong, not me.

And please don't go about pulling the same shit that trep does, with the whole "you don't have a car you don't know anything" shit because I do drive a lot, not as much as you guys but it's not like I never touch the car. And you haven't been driving that long either in the grand scheme of things. It wasn't even that long ago that you were complaining about your racing incident and that was when you were 16.

Buddy, if you haven't noticed it's only been us two arguing this. So by your logic that would make you as "wrong" as I am. No body has argued this with me yet, and frankly if they want to argue, I hope they do so soon because honestly your arguments don't provide much of an.....argument.

I'm not pulling the same shit trep does nor have I ever done so to you. I was simply implying that you lack experience in all of the fields related to this topic and was mentioning even the simplest one, driving hours.

You are absolutely correct, relative to many out there I have not been driving for long. Relative to you, I've been driving for ages (don't forget the 4hr one way trips I often take every weekend to go back home). However, I am experienced in that I observe a shit load of old peoples driving habits (my hometown) and roughly 60k young peoples driving habits (Gainesville, college town) and the fact I have experienced what it is like to be a youngster charged with committing a serious traffic violation, if you can even call it that. I would say in the "grand scheme of things" I have a little more to offer to this argument.

Sure someone, like one of the resident LEO's, could come along and blow my argument right out of the water and if they do then I will gladly admit I was wrong, however, your argument provide no substance what so ever.

[Lazerous]

See why people have problems with speed law enforcement? 

It's ageism.  Had that been a 20 year old on the way to a doctor's appointment, they would have said that he should have been more responsible and left earlier. 

Also, before Rag grabs your second statement and uses it as shield, I honestly believe that if someone can provide documentation (regardless of age), that they were on their way for a serious doctors appointment, that their fine should be reduced in court (keywords here being "in court." An example should be made out of them on the street). Also I am not implying it should be completely thrown out of the window, just reduced.

Oh and by doctors appointment I don't mean a dentist's appointment for tooth whitening because you have a really important job interview the next day or what have you.

[Cookie Monster]

Buddy, if you haven't noticed it's only been us two arguing this. So by your logic that would make you as "wrong" as I am. No body has argued this with me yet, and frankly if they want to argue, I hope they do so soon because honestly your arguments don't provide much of an.....argument.

I'm not pulling the same shit trep does nor have I ever done so to you. I was simply implying that you lack experience in all of the fields related to this topic and was mentioning even the simplest one, driving hours.

You are absolutely correct, relative to many out there I have not been driving for long. Relative to you, I've been driving for ages (don't forget the 4hr one way trips I often take every weekend to go back home). However, I am experienced in that I observe a shit load of old peoples driving habits (my hometown) and roughly 60k young peoples driving habits (Gainesville, college town) and the fact I have experienced what it is like to be a youngster charged with committing a serious traffic violation, if you can even call it that. I would say in the "grand scheme of things" I have a little more to offer to this argument.

Sure someone, like one of the resident LEO's, could come along and blow my argument right out of the water and if they do then I will gladly admit I was wrong, however, your argument provide no substance what so ever.

There are already 4-5 people here with the same opinion as me...
And good job if you've already had a serious traffic violation when you were 16. Shows how responsible you are.
I'd rather not have any experience in the street racing area, thanks.

[Lazerous]

There are already 4-5 people here with the same opinion as me...

Ummm...I only see one other person. That being Dazzleman. Nick just made some insane post about nuking Canada for making stupid laws and Soup just gave his .02 on it being a regular ol' plea bargain.

Strike 1.

EDIT: I forgot about the OP, that is still no where near 5 people.

And good job if you've already had a serious traffic violation when you were 16. Shows how responsible you are.

You are quite obviously running out of steam here, because in no way did any of my posts imply I was boasting about having a serious traffic violation.

I live on my own, remodeled (and paid for most of it) whole 1300 sq ft apartment on my own with no help (and I mean every single little item down to changing the toilet seats themselves), pay my own bills, take care of my financial situation for college, do my own cleaning and what have you. So yes, I would say I am a responsible mature person. What part of that did you do? Yes I did do most of that stuff when I was 16 as well, minus the remodeling and living on my own.

Strike 2.

I'd rather not have any experience in the street racing area, thanks.

I seriously hope no person has to go through the headache of a mandatory hearing in court and living with the possibility that I could have had a $2000 fine slapped on me as well as having my car impounded for a week.

However, you seem to be so stuck in this, and I hate to repeat myself so much, idealist world that I hope you can experience a matter of this certain magnitude and also emerge from it unscathed. Maybe then your balls will finally drop.

Strike 3.


Have anymore blasphemous things to throw at me?

[CALL_911]

Ummm...I only see one other person. That being Dazzleman. Nick just made some insane post about nuking Canada for making stupid laws and Soup just gave his .02 on it being a regular ol' plea bargain.

Strike 1.

EDIT: I forgot about the OP, that is still no where near 5 people.

You are quite obviously running out of steam here, because in no way did any of my posts imply I was boasting about having a serious traffic violation.

I live on my own, remodeled (and paid for most of it) whole 1300 sq ft apartment on my own with no help (and I mean every single little item down to changing the toilet seats themselves), pay my own bills, take care of my financial situation for college, do my own cleaning and what have you. So yes, I would say I am a responsible mature person. What part of that did you do? Yes I did do most of that stuff when I was 16 as well, minus the remodeling and living on my own.

Strike 2.
I seriously hope no person has to go through the headache of a mandatory hearing in court and living with the possibility that I could have had a $2000 fine slapped on me as well as having my car impounded for a week.

However, you seem to be so stuck in this, and I hate to repeat myself so much, idealist world that I hope you can experience a matter of this certain magnitude and also emerge from it unscathed. Maybe then your balls will finally drop.

Strike 3.


Have anymore blasphemous things to throw at me?

Okay, now let's all be honest. It's really just the work of aliens. The old man, yep, he's an alien. It's all their fault. The Holocaust, 9/11, Festivus. Aliens. That's my opinion.

[Lazerous]

Okay, now let's all be honest. It's really just the work of aliens. The old man, yep, he's an alien. It's all their fault. The Holocaust, 9/11, Festivus. Aliens. That's my opinion.

Is Area-51 also a work of the aliens?