[Newsbot]

Title: Alberta man accused of chronic road rage has vehicle seized
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: Barbarella
Date: 2013-08-14 11:31:05
Canadian

[Barbarella]

It's a start but there's plenty more who could use a wake up call.

[bootlegga]

Now if we can get the other few thousand idiots (you can usually tell one by their new 7 digit license plate) out there off the road, we'll be talking!

[2Cdo]

Thanos?

[Jabberwalker]

... my brother, probably ...

[Thanos]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Thanos?

On certain days....maybe. But that's only when I get really torqued up over something Bart said.

I want them to name the jerk. I know a couple of barely controllable toolbags, the type that'd beat their own mother up if they got mad enough, that fit this guy's description perfectly.

[commanderkai]

They'd make a killing in Montreal doing this, and I have a bad feeling my car would be seized in Toronto.

[Xort]

I don't agree with the seizure of private property without fair compensation.

Revoke his license, cancel the registration of the vehicle, ban it from use on public roads and give the guy a warning about how if he does drive he will go to jail. But to just take someone's car?

All the criminal charges he is facing, I agree with. But not with taking his car, without payment.

Also wouldn't you need a trail first before you could seize someone's property? If not I think that it should be required.

[Thanos]

Precedent's been set by the way certain jurisdictions now seize the cars of illegal street racers and send them to the crusher as part of the punishment. Owning a car is not a right and property laws are not the same in Canada as in the US. You can own property of any sort, within reason, but that doesn't give you a right to behave with it in any stupid or dangerous or malicious manner that you feel like. If part of this idiots punishment is to never own a vehicle again then so be it. It's no different than putting a lifetime animal-ownership ban on some abusive sociopath who gets caught beating his dogs or cats to death.

[Xort]

Thanos Thanos:

Precedent's been set by the way certain jurisdictions seize the cars of racers and send them to the crusher as punishment.

Before a trial?

Also just because it's been set in no way means that it is right, or is the sort of law that we should support.

$1:

Owning a car is not a right and property laws are not the same in Canada as in the US. You can own property of any sort, within reason, but that doesn't give you a right to behave with it in any stupid or dangerous or malicious manner that you feel like. If part of this idiots punishment is to never own a vehicle again then so be it. It's no different than putting a lifetime animal-ownership ban on some abusive sociopath who gets caught beating his dogs or cats to death.

Shouldn't he get a trial first, before the government takes his stuff and sells it?

If we don't want him to use a car fine, we can do that. Ban him from using public roads. If you can make a good argument that even just owning a car is too much of a risk, then take his car.

But pay him the fair market value for the vehicle.

Having a government body just take property and sell it for profit is a terrible idea, I'm strongly against it.

[Thanos]

The police have the duty and obligation to seize the property of anyone if they have reason to believe, and have evidence to support charges as well, that the person they've taken it from is an imminent threat to the lives and safety of others. A gun owner that recklessly points his firearms at other people, even if he hasn't pulled the trigger, or loves shooting it into the air within municipal limits when he gets excited or drunk, has no right in Canada to maintain possession of those weapons until after any trial is finished. Same with some scumbag who lets his pitbulls run loose on the street to attack other dogs or people; they seize them first, put them down if an attack is serious enough, press charges against the owner, and have the trial afterwards. Ditto with the clown in the news link who already has nine incidents in two years as evidence against him.

Common sense law is all it is that's happening, and the police are doing their job correctly. It's not bound up in some ridiculous "inherent rights for lunatics" argument as happens far too often in the US.

[Xort]

Thanos Thanos:

The police have the duty and obligation to seize the property of anyone if they have reason to believe, and have evidence to support charges as well, that the person they've taken it from is an imminent threat to the lives and safety of others.

And then turn around and sell it for a profit?

Also if the person was a imminent threat to the lives of others shouldn't the police be arresting the person, not taking away some property?

$1:

A gun owner that recklessly points his firearms at other people, even if he hasn't pulled the trigger, or loves shooting it into the air within municipal limits when he gets excited or drunk, has no right in Canada to maintain possession of those weapons until after any trial is finished.

Well pointing a firearm at someone without cuase is a crime. Also not all municipalities ban the discharge of firearms. But on topic, our laws have set ownership requirements for having a firearm. Violation of those conditions removes your right to own a firearm. Owning a car is not subject to those conditions, operating a car is however. We can remove the right to operate a vehicle on public roads, that makes sense.

$1:

Same with some scumbag who lets his pitbulls run loose on the street to attack other dogs or people; they seize them first, put them down if an attack is serious enough, press charges against the owner, and have the trial afterwards.

Does the government get to sell the dogs? Also if the dogs had a valid reason for the attack, wouldn't destroying them be jumping the gun? If the government has taken the dogs, surely the government can keep them safely until all the facts of the incident have been found, and then pass judgement on if the dogs are such a danger to the public that they must be destroyed?

It would be like taking someone's gun collection of historical oddities and destroying it before the facts where proven.

You can't unkill a pet, undestroy a historical treasure, or uncrush a car. You might be able to buy back a vehicle and return something of similar value to the owner if they are found not to be guilty of any crimes after all, but is waiting for a judge to set punishment that bad? Nothing else in the legal system seems to give a fuck about being swift.

$1:

Ditto with the clown in the news link who already has nine incidents in two years as evidence against him.

My question is why isn't this guy facing 9 different trials? Why hasn't a judge banned him from driving? Why isn't he in jail for the last 9 crimes?

$1:

Common sense law is all it is that's happening, and the police are doing their job correctly. It's not bound up in some ridiculous "inherent rights for lunatics" argument as happens far too often in the US.

If he is a risk to others arrest him for his crimes, then ask for no bail.

If his vehicle is the risk, then remove his legal right to drive on public roads. If he drives his vehicle arrest him for that and put him in jail while he waits for his trial.

If you just must have the destruction of the vehicle as part of the punishment (like in the case of street racers) then if the crime a person have been convicted of includes the option of a fine, and if that fine's max limit is greater than the value of the car offer the option of destroying the vehicle to cover the fine. Then the convicted criminal can deside to keep the vehicle and pay the fine with money, or have the vehilce destroyed and keep the cash.

If the crimes this man is being charged with do not have a fine option then his property should not be taken. If he is such a risk that you think it's unsafe to leave him with his own vehicle, then I would suggest he is unsafe to be free in public, and should be in jail waiting for a trial and then prison if found guilty.

[Public_Domain]

[Thanos]

I remain a lot more concerned about the other lives that this reckless psycho would inevitably destroy than I am about some ephemeral right he has to his property. Given his track record I'd also have him sitting in jail until the trial because odds are that he might get off with just a warning from whatever judge falls for his BS sob story. Whatever pre-trial incarceration he gets could be the only significant punishment he receives.

[Xort]

Thanos Thanos:

I remain a lot more concerned about the other lives that this reckless psycho would inevitably destroy than I am about some ephemeral right he has to his property.

I'm not saying that he should still be driving. What I'm saying is that you can limit his driving without selling his vehicle, prior to him being found guilty of a crime.

Even after, if he has been found guilty he should still be able to own a vehicle just not operate it on public roads.

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Lock a man in a cold grey cage for his entire life (or kill him) = okay/somewhat okay
Take his weapon and his computer = not okay at all
Just seems odd that possessions are for some reason supposed to be treated better than human life..?

A basic differance of political belief.

If only we could control or regulate all the items then we could be safer.

If only we could control or regulate people then we would be safer.

If this guy is a danger then take action to protect people. If you think that his operation of vehicles are the danger than remove his legal right to operate a vehicle on a public road.

The problem is not that he owns a vehicle it is (in part) how he uses it on public roads.

Private possession of property is a basic human right, the government should respect that. The government has ways to limit the danger he poses while driving that respects the right of private property.

Although I guess telling a communist about the right of people to own property is a waste?