[PublicAnimalNo9]

Xort 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.

That's like saying a hunter who is careless/reckless with his firearm should still be able to own one, they just can't go hunting anymore. In other words, what's the point?
Not to mention that forbidding someone from driving isn't exactly going to stop someone like this doofus from driving his car if he bloody well wants to drive his car.
And considering his track record, I'm amazed it's taken this long to impound his vehicle.

[Xort]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

That's like saying a hunter who is careless/reckless with his firearm should still be able to own one, they just can't go hunting anymore. In other words, what's the point?

Say the hunter killed a misidentified animal with a rifle. Do you take the rifle, or do you ban the hunter from hunting for a few years/forever?

You ban the action, not the tools.

$1:

Not to mention that forbidding someone from driving isn't exactly going to stop someone like this doofus from driving his car if he bloody well wants to drive his car.

Enforcement is the job of the police.

Driving after having all right to drive removed should be jail time, and not very hard to prove. Have a police car go by his place, is the vehicle gone?
~
You can't make people safe by taking his vehicle, if you are going to leave him free to go about his day to day activities. His issues seem like anger management that just happens to be reported because it caused a first ever event to happen when his vehicle was taken.

You can not make people safe by limiting people's access to harmfull items. Items are not what causes harm, it's people.

$1:

And considering his track record, I'm amazed it's taken this long to impound his vehicle.

I'm suprised he isn't in prison already. Go justice system, way to earn your massive wages.

[Lemmy]

Xort Xort:

Say the hunter killed a misidentified animal with a rifle. Do you take the rifle, or do you ban the hunter from hunting for a few years/forever?

You ban the action, not the tools.

No, you ban both. But ultimately, the only way to prevent the guy from repeating the behaviour is to take the tools. Taking a drunk drivers' piece-of-paper license doesn't physically prevent him from driving. Taking away his access to a car does. Reactive solutions are never as effective as proactive ones.

[herbie]

Owning property is a right that isn't in the Charter. You've always had that right, and there is no constitutional clause that says 'only the rights listed here exist'.
That's a principle always there from Common Law, but it will take someone or some group to make the case before Supreme Court.
And unfortunately this isn't the USA. We don't have anything with the balls or funding of their attorneys here.
What's incredibly stupid is claiming what you guys are claiming - it will prevent the fuckwad from driving. There's no way to stop him from buying another car.
Seizing property and fining people could be found as double jeopardy if someone pursued it. The seizure of property 'from proceeds of crime' has got so out of hand they're already looking into it in the USA.
Impound the thing for X number of years. It may not be worth the fee to retrieve it, yet it isn't 'taken'. If it isn't paid for, then sell it with no accusations of a gov't profit motive.

[Xort]

Lemmy Lemmy:

No, you ban both. But ultimately, the only way to prevent the guy from repeating the behaviour is to take the tools.

If the person is going to break the legal ban on the action what possible reason does that person have for not breaking the ban on owning the tools?

$1:

Taking a drunk drivers' piece-of-paper license doesn't physically prevent him from driving. Taking away his access to a car does. Reactive solutions are never as effective as proactive ones.

You can stop a person from ever having access to a car but taking away the car they own?

Wow.

Cause I've driven cars that I didn't own.

The only way to stop the action is to fully control the person; AKA prison.

[Lemmy]

Xort Xort:

If the person is going to break the legal ban on the action what possible reason does that person have for not breaking the ban on owning the tools?

Guns aren't just tools. But any policy that makes it physically more difficult to do a task will discourage it; much more so than than taking away a paper license. Neither, of course, will be 100% effective; we're talking degrees of effectiveness.

Xort Xort:

You can stop a person from ever having access to a car by taking away the car they own?

In the immediate short-term, yes.

Xort Xort:

Wow. Cause I've driven cars that I didn't own.

But did you steal those cars? Did you drive those cars right, immediately when you wanted to use them?

Xort Xort:

The only way to stop the action is to fully control the person; AKA prison.

But how do you control a person before they commit the crime? Prison is reactive. The victim's already a victim. We want to prevent people from killing others with guns. The way to do that is to delay the access. We'll never stop "bad guys" who possess guns with premeditation to commit crimes. That's irrelevant to the issue of gun control.

But most gun injuries aren't perpetrated by "bad guys". They're committed by normal, law-abiding people who snap and shoot, but wouldn't have if they'd had to go out and get a gun from somewhere else. Most gun injuries don't come from the existence of guns, but the immediate, physical access to them.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

herbie herbie:

Owning property is a right that isn't in the Charter. You've always had that right, and there is no constitutional clause that says 'only the rights listed here exist'.
That's a principle always there from Common Law, but it will take someone or some group to make the case before Supreme Court.
And unfortunately this isn't the USA. We don't have anything with the balls or funding of their attorneys here.
What's incredibly stupid is claiming what you guys are claiming - it will prevent the fuckwad from driving. There's no way to stop him from buying another car.

I dunno about where you live but in Ontario it's pretty much impossible to buy a car without a driver's licence.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Xort Xort:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

That's like saying a hunter who is careless/reckless with his firearm should still be able to own one, they just can't go hunting anymore. In other words, what's the point?

Say the hunter killed a misidentified animal with a rifle. Do you take the rifle, or do you ban the hunter from hunting for a few years/forever?

You ban the action, not the tools.

$1:

Not to mention that forbidding someone from driving isn't exactly going to stop someone like this doofus from driving his car if he bloody well wants to drive his car.

Enforcement is the job of the police.

And they did their job, yet you're crying about it.

[Regina]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

herbie herbie:

Owning property is a right that isn't in the Charter. You've always had that right, and there is no constitutional clause that says 'only the rights listed here exist'.
That's a principle always there from Common Law, but it will take someone or some group to make the case before Supreme Court.
And unfortunately this isn't the USA. We don't have anything with the balls or funding of their attorneys here.
What's incredibly stupid is claiming what you guys are claiming - it will prevent the fuckwad from driving. There's no way to stop him from buying another car.

I dunno about where you live but in Ontario it's pretty much impossible to buy a car without a driver's licence.

Especially if you need financing. You need insurance for that and for that you need a license.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Regina Regina:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

herbie herbie:

Owning property is a right that isn't in the Charter. You've always had that right, and there is no constitutional clause that says 'only the rights listed here exist'.
That's a principle always there from Common Law, but it will take someone or some group to make the case before Supreme Court.
And unfortunately this isn't the USA. We don't have anything with the balls or funding of their attorneys here.
What's incredibly stupid is claiming what you guys are claiming - it will prevent the fuckwad from driving. There's no way to stop him from buying another car.

I dunno about where you live but in Ontario it's pretty much impossible to buy a car without a driver's licence.

Especially if you need financing. You need insurance for that and for that you need a license.

Yes indeedy.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Xort Xort:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

That's like saying a hunter who is careless/reckless with his firearm should still be able to own one, they just can't go hunting anymore. In other words, what's the point?

Say the hunter killed a misidentified animal with a rifle. Do you take the rifle, or do you ban the hunter from hunting for a few years/forever?

You ban the action, not the tools.

If the idiot misidentified an animal on 9 separate occasions, you ban the action and you take his fucking toys away.
How many chances do you think the cops should give this guy to finally kill someone??

[DrCaleb]

For those wondering about this poor soul and how he's going to get by without his vehicle - there are nine incidents on record for him:

$1:

The affidavit, filed by the arresting officer and obtained by CBC News, identify Justin Timothy Mack, 25, as the accused driver.

Police say a man accused Mack of using his GMC Yukon Denali in an attempt to force him off Terwillegar Drive in April.

Mack was arrested on July 31 and faces charges including dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, assault, criminal harassment and breach of probation.

He was denied bail yesterday.

$1:

In 2005, Mack was convicted of assault of a man who was in relationship with his ex-girlfriend.

Mack stopped behind the man’s car at an intersection and approaching the driver door. He then reached into the window and punched the driver five or six times in the face before the victim drove off.

Mack then gave chase, forcing the man to stop before going back to hit him several more times before driving off.

Less than an hour later, Mack and two others found the man again, dragged him from his vehicle by the legs and started beating him.

The victim received a broken arm, as well as injuries to his back, face and ribs.

The second conviction came after an attack in July 2011. Mack was the passenger in his girlfriend’s Mercedes which came to a stop behind a vehicle in a construction zone.

Mack approached the driver of the vehicle and, in front of the driver’s wife and three children, pulled him from the vehicle and punched him twice in the face, breaking the man’s nose.

He then tried to remove the license plate from his girlfriend’s vehicle before the pair drove away.

In April 2013, he was convicted of assault and mischief in that beating and received a 24-month suspended sentence.

The affidavit also listed seven other road rage incidents where Mack was accused, but never charged.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... hicle.html

[DrCaleb]

Regina Regina:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I dunno about where you live but in Ontario it's pretty much impossible to buy a car without a driver's licence.

Especially if you need financing. You need insurance for that and for that you need a license.

It happens all the time. You can buy a vehicle, and don't need to register or insure it, if you never drive it on public roads. It's called a 'farm vehicle'.

It pisses the salesman off if you don't give them your license, but they still do the sale.

[Regina]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Regina Regina:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I dunno about where you live but in Ontario it's pretty much impossible to buy a car without a driver's licence.

Especially if you need financing. You need insurance for that and for that you need a license.

It happens all the time. You can buy a vehicle, and don't need to register or insure it, if you never drive it on public roads. It's called a 'farm vehicle'.

It pisses the salesman off if you don't give them your license, but they still do the sale.

Yup if it's a cash deal. Can't register plates for it though.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Regina Regina:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I dunno about where you live but in Ontario it's pretty much impossible to buy a car without a driver's licence.

Especially if you need financing. You need insurance for that and for that you need a license.

It happens all the time. You can buy a vehicle, and don't need to register or insure it, if you never drive it on public roads. It's called a 'farm vehicle'.

It pisses the salesman off if you don't give them your license, but they still do the sale.

In Ontario, "farm vehicles" still need to be plated and registered as a commercial vehicle.