Double standard BS

[CALL_911]

Is Area-51 also a work of the aliens?

No, no. I just ate a lot of Taco Bell that day, and so it was declared Area-51. For each ton of Mexican food I ate that day. That was one of the biggest shits I had taken in a while.

[Lazerous]

No, no. I just ate a lot of Taco Bell that day, and so it was declared Area-51. For each ton of Mexican food I ate that day. That was one of the biggest shits I had taken in a while.

You know, you are Indian, so I'm not even going to try to prove that one wrong.

[CALL_911]

You know, you are Indian, so I'm not even going to try to prove that one wrong.

Don't make me make Area-100.

[Raza]

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.

It's no secret that the law discriminates against young people.

[Cookie Monster]

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.

Add Raza and that's already 3. "Pretty close" to the 4-5 people amount, I said, huh?

[/nitpick]

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.

So basically out of that entire list, the only thing you did was "do your own cleaning" when you were 16? Good for you! What a man!
I do my entire family's laundry. I am just so cool!   I don't even see where this begins to enter the argument other than you bringing random shit in to try to support your weak ass argument.
If a LEO decides that I'm wrong, then I'll believe him but you've got a holier-than-thou attitude just because you're *gasp* 2 years older than me!
If I'm running out of steam then why are you the one bringing up all this random, useless stuff?

Strike 2.

I don't think so.

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?

If I were street racing, I'd expect to fully get the shaft. And that's what this man should've done too. Otherwise, if he gets off the hook, will I also get a lighter punishment if I were "accidentaly" going 30 mph over? If I were going that fast in the first place, even "accidentaly", I'd expect to get the full punishment.
And stop repeating yourself so often.

[Lazerous]

It's no secret that the law discriminates against young people.

I hate to be the one to say this, but the law almost does it rightfully so. I believe I am a good driver that learns from his mistakes (I would think most of us believe the same due to our passion towards automotive machines and how they function and work). However, the more I live in a city dominated by people my age the more I realize that the law isn't entirely obscured or wrong in believing people our age are reckless are very likely to be repeat offenders.

I dislike being on this end of the argument, but the truth must be told even though I might be one to suffer from it.

[Lazerous]

Add Raza and that's already 3. "Pretty close" to the 4-5 people amount, I said, huh?

[/nitpick]
So basically out of that entire list, the only thing you did was "do your own cleaning" when you were 16? Good for you! What a man!
I do my entire family's laundry. I am just so cool!   I don't even see where this begins to enter the argument other than you bringing random shit in to try to support your weak ass argument.
If a LEO decides that I'm wrong, then I'll believe him but you've got a holier-than-thou attitude just because you're *gasp* 2 years older than me!
If I'm running out of steam then why are you the one bringing up all this random, useless stuff?
I don't think so.
If I were street racing, I'd expect to fully get the shaft. And that's what this man should've done too. Otherwise, if he gets off the hook, will I also get a lighter punishment if I were "accidentaly" going 30 mph over? If I were going that fast in the first place, even "accidentaly", I'd expect to get the full punishment.
And stop repeating yourself so often.

I already commented on Raza's post and said that I essentially agree with it. I don't see your point.

Dear god help me again! Why do I continue to argue with such ignorant people? Maybe because it's so fun and easy to prove you wrong

Hey buddy go re-read and your post and you will see how it says "Shows how responsible you are" Keyword here being "are" which is present tense, which implies I am not currently a responsible person. So no, I don't think I've been known to bring up useless random shit into an argument because I've been in enough to know it never works. There you have it. I had to explain your own post for you. Wow. Also, I said I did all that stuff when I was 16 except for remodeling and living on my own, how does that only leave cleaning? This continues to prove to me you are not really reading and grasping what I have to say. Before you ask, yes I went to college when I was 16, sure it was free because of dual enrollment but who do you think paid for the $196 Calculus book (no lie, it cost that much)?

I do not have a holier-than-thou attitude, now you are just attempting to tag me with stuff I normally go against. Raza would be the one to be tagged with that attitude and he gladly admits it (I think). I am simply proving you wrong and clearly showing you that I have more experience in the matter than you do. That is the simple fact about this matter. No I don't have more experience than some others on this board, I'm not suggesting that.

Guess what buddy? I expected to get the "shaft" as well and went to court fully prepared with dress clothes and a bottle of vaseline. Would you look at that though? The Muslim Arab 16 year old got away with a slap on the wrist! OMG, I don't believe it!

You don't accidentally go 30mph over unless you really didn't know what the speed limit was. Also the guy admittedly said he was going that fast to pass somebody else (or am I mixing it up with another story?).

Honestly, I hate repeating myself but your arguments honestly (I'm not trying to be an ass or bring you down here) provide no substance whatsoever.

[sparkplug]

He was only doing like 80mph in a 50mph. It just sounds fast because it in kilometers. Serious but maybe his viagra was affecting his pedal control.

[565]

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.

Why should the car he drove even matter?  Why should his age matter?

If I rushed to the hospital for some emergency in my Z06 I get my car confiscated but if he does it in his Buick he gets off with a slap on the wrist?  That's discrimination plain and clear.

Anyway 130km/hr is ridiculous, that's only like 81mph. That's like the mininum speed of traffic around here.

[565]

Also if Canada is now making bogus laws against young people to reduce highway fatalities they should do something to curb the amount of unqualified elderly drivers on the road.  I'm currently doing some work with elderly patients and I'm shocked by the number of elderly patients who can barely see, barely hear, barely put on their clothes and still proudly tell me they still drive to the store.  Then I realize I shouldn't be so shocked because on the way back from the hospital I encounter a multitude geriatric drivers grinding along, completely oblivious to the flow of traffic, hardly aware of their surroundings. And then I flip on the news and hear about how some 80 year old woman drove through a hair salon, or plowed through a crowd of people, etc, etc and insist that the car's pedals suddenly functioned in reverse.

People over the age of 65 should be subject to yearly driving exams where they are subject to mental, visual, and physical tests that assess their elegibility to drive.  If they fail to meet strict standards that new drivers need to obtain their licenses, they should have their licenses revoked, and should have to enter the same licensing system that new drivers do.  There is no excuse to allow people who are no longer capable of driving put themselves and others in danger.

[Lazerous]

Why should the car he drove even matter?  Why should his age matter?

If I rushed to the hospital for some emergency in my Z06 I get my car confiscated but if he does it in his Buick he gets off with a slap on the wrist?  That's discrimination plain and clear.

Anyway 130km/hr is ridiculous, that's only like 81mph. That's like the mininum speed of traffic around here.

I knew someone would comment on that. No, the car he drives should not matter and I was taking away the fact that he was rushing to the hospital. Also, I initially thought he was charged for racing, that was made clear later.

However, I am simply saying that (lets assume he was stopped on account of racing) it would be less likely that he actually was racing, instead of say passing the car, had he been in a Buick than if he was one  of the many old people I see in my hometown that have corvette's and tend to be more spirited in their acceleration than I am.

I also made it clear later on that if anybody (regardless of age) can provide legitimate documentation to the court that they were going to the hospital then they should have their fine reduced at least. Maybe you missed that point...

[GoCougs]

It's not about double standards per se - the law has never been applied equally to everyone.

The idea behind this law my hunch is to clamp down on organized street racing. A senior citizen isn't cavorting with a group of underground street racers.

That's why he got off with a much lesser penalty.

[dazzleman]

It's no secret that the law discriminates against young people.

You really should get over your persecution complex.  It doesn't wear well on a 20-year-old who drives a Porsche.

[565]

I also made it clear later on that if anybody (regardless of age) can provide legitimate documentation to the court that they were going to the hospital then they should have their fine reduced at least. Maybe you missed that point...

No I didn't, and I also didn't miss this point you made.

"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."

There you clearly state he has more reason to speed because his doctors appointments are somehow more "necessary" than ours.  The thing is, they are appointments, you make them before hand, you know the time they happen.  This isn't an emergency, he's not being rushed to the hospital because his life is on the line (if he was, it wouldn't have a set appointment time, and he'd be in an ambulance, not driving himself).  So him being late is just his laziness/procastination to meet a time set far in advance.  Why should he get let off the hook because he's running late?  Anyway the doctor's appointment excuse is utterly lame, because even if you are significantly late hospitals will accomodate you if it is serious.  If it's just a routine checkup they'll just reschedule, and it's not crucial to have it that particular day.  It's no better an excuse than a dentists appointment, or an appointment with your lawyer, because in all these cases the small amount of time you save by speeding doesn't have a huge impact at all. A much more sensible excuse for speeding to the hospital would be to say he suddenly felt unwell and needed to rush himself to the emergency room for fear of serious problems, but then as long as you are traveling in the general direction of a hospital, anyone can use that excuse, even without your magical doctor's note.

[Lazerous]

No I didn't, and I also didn't miss this point you made.

"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."

There you clearly state he has more reason to speed because his doctors appointments are somehow more "necessary" than ours.  The thing is, they are appointments, you make them before hand, you know the time they happen.  This isn't an emergency, he's not being rushed to the hospital because his life is on the line (if he was, it wouldn't have a set appointment time, and he'd be in an ambulance, not driving himself).  So him being late is just his laziness/procastination to meet a time set far in advance.  Why should he get let off the hook because he's running late?  Anyway the doctor's appointment excuse is utterly lame, because even if you are significantly late hospitals will accomodate you if it is serious.  If it's just a routine checkup they'll just reschedule, and it's not crucial to have it that particular day.  It's no better an excuse than a dentists appointment, or an appointment with your lawyer, because in all these cases the small amount of time you save by speeding doesn't have a huge impact at all. A much more sensible excuse for speeding to the hospital would be to say he suddenly felt unwell and needed to rush himself to the emergency room for fear of serious problems, but then as long as you are traveling in the general direction of a hospital, anyone can use that excuse, even without your magical doctor's note.

I assume you are implying that both statements contradict one another however I fail to see how. I just mention that it is "more of a reason" on top of the fact that he is not the intended target oft his law. The law was clearly and blatantly set out and enforced to stop younger folks from excessive speeds due to racing. Maybe Canada doesn't have as clear cut of a rule about racing as most of the US does, and the vagueness/stupidity of this law is not what we are arguing at this point.

Yes, people schedule appointments before hand but to imply that we never go late to them is silly. Also to imply that one does not feel the urge to get to his appointment on time is also silly. Unless you live the perfect example then you are also a victim to what you preach against. Theoretically and experimentally, it has been proven that excessive speeds shave off a negligible amount of time when taking short distances into consideration, sure I can agree with you on that point you somewhat made.

The whole reason this does not bother me is because I understand what this law original intent was. As JWC put it, Canada could almost care less about the elderly as it has been proven in that area (and probably the rest of the world) that the elderly tend not to be on the speeding side of the spectrum, let alone "stunt driving." However, as I'm sure you've seen/read, there has been a recent outbreak of fatal or near fatal crashes due to excessive speeds from racing. A person, no matter his age, is more prone to this downfall given they are in possession of a sports car. I don't see how anybody could not understand that. No I am not suggesting ever 80 year old that drives a Corvette is set out on a mission to race as much as humanly possible. I'm just saying that the tune and atmosphere that sports cars set are vastly different than your average Buick Or Caddy boatmobile.

At the same time, I do not believe he should get his case completely thrown away (which, thankfully, it didn't) but I see no problem in it getting reduced. Face it, when you were younger (not sure how old you are now) you more than likely felt the urge to speed/race and as you grew elder that urge slowly began to fade as you realized that in the end it was not worth it. I believe that general mentality is safe enough to apply across a wide spectrum such as a law covering a whole area.

[565]

I assume you are implying that both statements contradict one another however I fail to see how. I just mention that it is "more of a reason" on top of the fact that he is not the intended target oft his law. The law was clearly and blatantly set out and enforced to stop younger folks from excessive speeds due to racing. Maybe Canada doesn't have as clear cut of a rule about racing as most of the US does, and the vagueness/stupidity of this law is not what we are arguing at this point.

Yes, people schedule appointments before hand but to imply that we never go late to them is silly. Also to imply that one does not feel the urge to get to his appointment on time is also silly. Unless you live the perfect example then you are also a victim to what you preach against. Theoretically and experimentally, it has been proven that excessive speeds shave off a negligible amount of time when taking short distances into consideration, sure I can agree with you on that point you somewhat made.

The crime isn't being late.  The crime is he was caught speeding for trying to make up time, then he should get slapped with the same penalties.  You're right, it isn't a perfect world, so no one expects you to be perfectly on time for a doctor's appointment anyway and it's not the end of the world if you miss it.

The whole reason this does not bother me is because I understand what this law original intent was. As JWC put it, Canada could almost care less about the elderly as it has been proven in that area (and probably the rest of the world) that the elderly tend not to be on the speeding side of the spectrum, let alone "stunt driving." However, as I'm sure you've seen/read, there has been a recent outbreak of fatal or near fatal crashes due to excessive speeds from racing. A person, no matter his age, is more prone to this downfall given they are in possession of a sports car. I don't see how anybody could not understand that. No I am not suggesting ever 80 year old that drives a Corvette is set out on a mission to race as much as humanly possible. I'm just saying that the tune and atmosphere that sports cars set are vastly different than your average Buick Or Caddy boatmobile.

This sort of blatant and illegal profiling would be outrageous if it involved say race, rather than age and clothing preference rather than car preference. Let me replace street racing with gang violence and old people and young people with whites and blacks, and see if it still sounds reasonable.  All I am doing is replacing one profiled group with another, and if it is so reasonable as you say, this should be passed into law immediately.

"The whole reason this does not bother me is because I understand what this law original intent was. As JWC put it, Canada could almost care less about the [white people] as it has been proven in that area (and probably the rest of the world) that the [white people] tend not to be on the [criminal] side of the spectrum, let alone "[gang violence]." However, as I'm sure you've seen/read, there has been a recent outbreak of fatal or near fatal [incidents] due to excessive [violence] from [gangs]. A person, no matter his [color], is more prone to this downfall given they are in possession of [ghetto clothes]. I don't see how anybody could not understand that. No I am not suggesting ever [black man] that [wears] [ghetto clothes] is set out on a mission to [shoot] as much as humanly possible. I'm just saying that the tune and atmosphere that [ghetto clothes] set are vastly different than your average [collared shirt] Or [NorthFace jacket]"

It's not okay to profile, no matter what the statistics are.  If it was, we might as well throw entire groups of people in jail, just in case.

At the same time, I do not believe he should get his case completely thrown away (which, thankfully, it didn't) but I see no problem in it getting reduced. Face it, when you were younger (not sure how old you are now) you more than likely felt the urge to speed/race and as you grew elder that urge slowly began to fade as you realized that in the end it was not worth it. I believe that general mentality is safe enough to apply across a wide spectrum such as a law covering a whole area.

That's like saying because it's statistically more likely that blacks commit certain crimes than whites that it's perfectly fine to come down on blacks harder than whites when they commit the same crime because obviously the intent cannot be the same.

Criminal laws should be targeted at a particular behavior no matter who commits them, not a particular age or race or sex group.  The law is against street racing and stunt driving, not against only young people doing the street racing.  Just because young people tend to do street racing more doesn't mean the law will only apply fully to them.  That's like saying because whites are less prone to gang violence that the white guy in the gang shouldn't get punished as severely because his group isn't the group targeted.  Obviously he must have accidently wandered into the pistol fight on his way to church.

[Lazerous]

The crime isn't being late.  The crime is he was caught speeding for trying to make up time, then he should get slapped with the same penalties.  You're right, it isn't a perfect world, so no one expects you to be perfectly on time for a doctor's appointment anyway and it's not the end of the world if you miss it.

I agree it's not the end of the world, 100%. Yet, you still feel that urge to try to make it on time so you will end up speeding. I also agree that the crime was speeding and as I've mentioned multiple times before I support what the cop did to this man and that he slapped the old man across the face with the full blown law. As cynical as it may sound, one of the best ways to enforce a law is to make an example out of people.

This sort of blatant and illegal profiling would be outrageous if it involved say race, rather than age and clothing preference rather than car preference. Let me replace street racing with gang violence and old people and young people with whites and blacks, and see if it still sounds reasonable.  All I am doing is replacing one profiled group with another, and if it is so reasonable as you say, this should be passed into law immediately.

"The whole reason this does not bother me is because I understand what this law original intent was. As JWC put it, Canada could almost care less about the [white people] as it has been proven in that area (and probably the rest of the world) that the [white people] tend not to be on the [criminal] side of the spectrum, let alone "[gang violence]." However, as I'm sure you've seen/read, there has been a recent outbreak of fatal or near fatal [incidents] due to excessive [violence] from [gangs]. A person, no matter his [color], is more prone to this downfall given they are in possession of [ghetto clothes]. I don't see how anybody could not understand that. No I am not suggesting ever [black man] that [wears] [ghetto clothes] is set out on a mission to [shoot] as much as humanly possible. I'm just saying that the tune and atmosphere that [ghetto clothes] set are vastly different than your average [collared shirt] Or [NorthFace jacket]"

It's not okay to profile, no matter what the statistics are.  If it was, we might as well throw entire groups of people in jail, just in case.

Not to sound like an ass, but the example you gave is completely blasphemous. I see what you did and I agree with you that my statement now sounds absurd, but to imply that race is the same as age is not correct in this context. Sure they are both profile groups and you appeared to "simply" switch them out, but you are FAR less capable and likely to do things given your age.

A lot more factors come into place when talking about shootings involving different races and different attire. Would you not think that someone wearing his baggy clothes would go around attempting to look more "hardcore" and thus perform "hardcore" things? Not necessarily shootings but no everybody goes around shooting people because of their attire. And as I made it clear, not every 80 year old man is going to race or speed because of his Corvette but the atmosphere is set and that is fact. Neglect race for a second, would it not be right to assume that in a dark alleyway some kid wearing tights jeans and a polo short is less likely to shoot you than a similar kid wearing his baggy clothes and chains and stuff?

Now bring race into the equation, to try to relate race and shootings to age and speeding/racing is absurd, in my honest opinion. They only have one thing in common and that is they are both profile groups. That's it! The similarities end there. A lot more factors come into play such as the background of the person performing the shootings. And that is why blacks tend to be on the higher criminal spectrum than whites since most blacks, till this day, grew up in enviroments that promoted violence and shooting.

That's like saying because it's statistically more likely that blacks commit certain crimes than whites that it's perfectly fine to come down on blacks harder than whites when they commit the same crime because obviously the intent cannot be the same.

Criminal laws should be targeted at a particular behavior no matter who commits them, not a particular age or race or sex group.  The law is against street racing and stunt driving, not against only young people doing the street racing.  Just because young people tend to do street racing more doesn't mean the law will only apply fully to them.  That's like saying because whites are less prone to gang violence that the white guy in the gang shouldn't get punished as severely because his group isn't the group targeted.  Obviously he must have accidently wandered into the pistol fight on his way to church.

Once again, a shooting crime has a lot more factors that come into play than someone just being late to N appointment or what have you.

I also feel that tagging racing/speeding as a "criminal" law is absurd. I view it as nothing more than a serious traffic violation, if someone dies in it then yeah sure it can be rightfully escalated to a criminal law.

You know what I completely agree with your second paragraph. No doubt. However, what you are implying there is that the old man was in fact racing. If he really was racing and the cop heard him and the other guy rev their engines or both rammed the throttle then I am all for nailing him with the full intent of the law and no excuses. Seriously. If a cop stopped him on the same account of racing as I was stopped for then he deserves full punishment no doubt. However, that was not the case. I feel like this category falls underneath the vagueness/stupidity that this law really is, and we aren't arguing that at this point. In fact, if you do feel like you have to continues arguing this point then know that you have my full support and backing.

[dazzleman]

 

Wow Laz, you've gotten pretty combative....

[VTEC_Inside]

First let me clear up that the article confuses things a bit. The law is for 50kph over, not simply driving 130kph. It was because he was driving 130kph in an 80kph zone.

It's not about double standards per se - the law has never been applied equally to everyone.

The idea behind this law my hunch is to clamp down on organized street racing. A senior citizen isn't cavorting with a group of underground street racers.

That's why he got off with a much lesser penalty.

Thats where I have a problem with it. We ALREADY HAD laws that could have easily been applied to more serious offenders.

I've never street raced, nor am likely to street race etc... but you bet your ass they would have held me to 50kph over in the same circumstances. Young looking guy in a sport compact, $$$, easy money. Maybe I'll sell it and try and find a nice Grand National...

Bottom line is that the old way of dealing with 50+ over was more than sufficient for the majority of the population (IMO) and this case just enforces that fact.(Old way was court date, no set fine)

[Lazerous]

Wow Laz, you've gotten pretty combative....

I hope I don't come off as offensive. Just trying have a nice little debate, I guess.

I also assume those arguing with me know that I am not cop, nor do I know of any relatives that are cops, nor do I have a relatives that got stopped for the same incident; and just know that I am not even 20 yet and still have speeding tendencies so in reality I have no reason at all to be arguing any of this, except that I feel it is the truth.

I don't feel like we should expect our courtroom officials to act as robots and simply look at the crime you committed and read the punishment to you out of the textbook of laws and regulations. If they did simply read out of a book then I would have had my car confiscated and been thousands of dollars in debt, yet I still learned my lesson (for the most part) with the "simple" punishment they gave me due to my otherwise clean record and good academic standing (I mentioned my academic standing to my prosecutor, not sure if it eased things, but I think it did).

[Eye of the Tiger]

I like turtles.

[dazzleman]

I hope I don't come off as offensive. Just trying have a nice little debate, I guess.

I also assume those arguing with me know that I am not cop, nor do I know of any relatives that are cops, nor do I have a relatives that got stopped for the same incident; and just know that I am not even 20 yet and still have speeding tendencies so in reality I have no reason at all to be arguing any of this, except that I feel it is the truth.

I don't feel like we should expect our courtroom officials to act as robots and simply look at the crime you committed and read the punishment to you out of the textbook of laws and regulations. If they did simply read out of a book then I would have had my car confiscated and been thousands of dollars in debt, yet I still learned my lesson (for the most part) with the "simple" punishment they gave me due to my otherwise clean record and good academic standing (I mentioned my academic standing to my prosecutor, not sure if it eased things, but I think it did).

I completely understand your point.

I also have some concerns with the tendency to write laws that overreach in terms of consequences, and set the bar for more serious offenses too low.  I'm not sure if this Ontario laws falls in with that, but the tendency is there.

What ends up happening is that penalties then become uneven and even arbitrary at times.  Unfortunately, that is the nature of our justice system; like anything else, justice is a negotiable commodity.

OTOH, I think it's disingenuous to argue that laws cracking down on racing discriminate against younger drivers.  In passing laws, we should be concerned whether an activity is harmful to the public at large, not how a certain demographic group will be impacted by enforcement.  The choice is always there to refrain from activity that carries to high a price tag in terms of punishment.  In fact, that's the whole idea.

As the old saying goes, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[VTEC_Inside]

I don't feel like we should expect our courtroom officials to act as robots and simply look at the crime you committed and read the punishment to you out of the textbook of laws and regulations. If they did simply read out of a book then I would have had my car confiscated and been thousands of dollars in debt, yet I still learned my lesson (for the most part) with the "simple" punishment they gave me due to my otherwise clean record and good academic standing (I mentioned my academic standing to my prosecutor, not sure if it eased things, but I think it did).

The problem is that the robot part is built right into this law. 50+ over = pretty much automatic tow regardless, hence this old fucker...

I'm sure the cop that ticketed him knew it would get publicity which is why he didn't knock it down right then and there.

Which leads to another problem, this law puts too much power in the hands of the police IMO. You are punished prior to being able to argue (stand trial) on your behalf. I believe thats how a similar BS law was overturned in Florida, or so I've heard.

[dazzleman]

The problem is that the robot part is built right into this law. 50+ over = pretty much automatic tow regardless, hence this old fucker...

I'm sure the cop that ticketed him knew it would get publicity which is why he didn't knock it down right then and there.

Which leads to another problem, this law puts too much power in the hands of the police IMO. You are punished prior to being able to argue (stand trial) on your behalf. I believe thats how a similar BS law was overturned in Florida, or so I've heard.

You have a court date coming up soon, don't you?  How do you think that will turn out?

Were you charged under the racing law, or is it just speeding?

[VTEC_Inside]

You have a court date coming up soon, don't you?  How do you think that will turn out?

Were you charged under the racing law, or is it just speeding?

May 31,2008. I was nailed for 48 or 49kph over before the new law, but it wouldn't have applied anyway.

I'm very confident that I can have the ticket tossed entirely or at least significantly reduced.

First reason is that there is NO way I was actually going that fast in the rain, stock RSX tires suck.

Second, even if I was, laser is adversely affected by rain limiting its accuracy.

Third and finally, I was pulled over almost a full kilometer from where the cop was sitting and would have been out of site completely for at least 20 seconds. It is entirely possible that whomever they gunned turned off the road at any one of 3 possible points behind me.

[Byteme]

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.

Because he was old or because the spirit of the law didn't apply in his case?

Hey, the guy plea bargained and got a lighter punishment.  So what?  Wouldn't you try for the same kind of plea bargain?  

[Byteme]

It's no secret that the law discriminates against young people.

As well it should.   

reckless little bastards.   

[VTEC_Inside]

Because he was old or because the spirit of the law didn't apply in his case?

Hey, the guy plea bargained and got a lighter punishment.  So what?  Wouldn't you try for the same kind of plea bargain? 

He got a lesser fine in the end, but he had already had his car towed, etc...

See the problem? He was punished and then it was later found that circumstances warranted a lesser fine. Are they going to reimburse him for the impound fees and any other costs he incurred due to the initial punishment?

[Byteme]

He got a lesser fine in the end, but he had already had his car towed, etc...

See the problem? He was punished and then it was later found that circumstances warranted a lesser fine. Are they going to reimburse him for the impound fees and any other costs he incurred due to the initial punishment?

Oh, I agree he got screwed there.  Parts of this law allow the cop to act and judge and jury without due process ( I guess they have due process in Canada.   )  I was responding to those who were complaining that he got off because he was old.

[93JC]

Ontario

No one takes you seriously with those silly 100 km/h speed limits...